# [CPC] First unofficial Ryzen benchmarks



## M4c4br3

Well, looks to be crap for gaming, but can't really see the clocks. If this thing can compete with my 6700k at 4.7ghz, then great, I love competition, but if it's even 10% slower, then I'll stick to Intel.


----------



## EightDee8D

Wait for mark.

.
.
.
.
.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



*BENCH MARK*


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M4c4br3*
> 
> Well, looks to be crap for gaming, but can't really see the clocks. If this thing can compete with my 6700k at 4.7ghz, then great, I love competition, but if it's even 10% slower, then I'll stick to Intel.


Clocks are a little bit low in this review, we'll see with final clocks.
But compared to old FX-8370 that's excellent results.
It will be hard to beat 7700K of course but AMD is back with good gaming performance.

edit : Instructions, latency and throughput :


----------



## sepiashimmer

No source? How can we know these are not fake like Cinebench and Fritz?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M4c4br3*
> 
> Well, looks to be crap for gaming, but can't really see the clocks. If this thing can compete with my 6700k at 4.7ghz, then great, I love competition, but if it's even 10% slower, then I'll stick to Intel.


Please keep in mind they threwARMA in there for gaming benchmarks...

The fact that it's still averaging above a skylake i5 with Arma in the mix and the other games listed aside from BF1 not being decently threaded I'd say it's in a pretty good spot - especially if it's clocked lower than what we can expect..

*Regardless - as always there will be fake benches out there so take this with a huge pile of salt and wait for official benchmarks*


----------



## Kommanche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Please keep in mind they through ARMA in there for gaming benchmarks...
> 
> The fact that it's still averaging above a skylake i5 with Arma in the mix and the other games listed aside from BF1 not being decently threaded I'd say it's in a pretty good spot - especially if it's clocked lower than what we can expect..
> 
> *Regardless - as always there will be fake benches out there so take this with a huge pile of salt and wait for official benchmarks*


+1 THIS. ARMA as a game benchmark is a ridiculous test for this CPU as this CPU has low clocks but high number of cores. So the fact Ryzen is competing with similarly clocked i5s is actually quite good.


----------



## CriticalOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M4c4br3*
> 
> Well, looks to be crap for gaming, but can't really see the clocks. If this thing can compete with my 6700k at 4.7ghz, then great, I love competition, but if it's even 10% slower, then I'll stick to Intel.


I don't really know why people expected different. Single core performance is still the biggest factor that determines how well a CPU performs in games.


----------



## nakano2k1

Brute performance and power consumption is impressive. Even the gaming numbers are decent given the library of games they used.

Ryzen is looking more and more like AMD promised. Still have to wait for final reviews before I start doing cartwheels however.

Who is this reviewer? I love his comments about Intel at the end. So very true....


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> No source? How can we know these are not fake like Cinebench and Fritz?


It's a scan from a paper magazine :

http://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/811883423371526144

edit : Doc TB (CPU-Z crew) is a really trustworthy guy and he doesn't produce fake results


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *M4c4br3*
> 
> Well, looks to be crap for gaming, but can't really see the clocks. If this thing can compete with my 6700k at 4.7ghz, then great, I love competition, but if it's even 10% slower, then I'll stick to Intel.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know why people expected different. Single core performance is still the biggest factor that determines how well a CPU performs in games.
Click to expand...

Usually, but not always.
Unlike four years ago multi-threading in games is a thing now, IPC can't go up forever.

All AMD has to do is be "competitive" in single core performance and ship something that has more CPU cores instead of a useless iGPU.

I might even prefer a CPU without any iGPU just for the fact that having two GPU's screws with Windows so much, especially in laptops.


----------



## Olivon

For Raven Ridge :

4C/8T
11CU, 704 units, 1.2GHz for ~ 2TFlops, around RX 460 level.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> For Raven Ridge :
> 
> 4C/8T
> 11CU, 704 units, 1.2GHz for ~ 2TFlops, around RX 460 level.


HTPC, check...


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> For Raven Ridge :
> 
> 4C/8T
> 11CU, 704 units, 1.2GHz for ~ 2TFlops, around RX 460 level.


If that is true, it pretty much makes all of NVIDIA's current GT series graphics cards obsolete. Unless if NVIDIA allows them to be used for PhysX and GameWorks.


----------



## CriticalOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Usually, but not always.
> Unlike four years ago multi-threading in games is a thing now, IPC can't go up forever.
> 
> All AMD has to do is be "competitive" in single core performance and ship something that has more CPU cores instead of a useless iGPU.


Mutlitheading doesn't change the fact that most games will still have one or two heavy threads that the rest of the threads will have to synchronize to, still creating an IPC bottleneck. Many parts of games can't be parallelized, so single threaded performance will still matter unless there is a very big paradigm shift in computer programming and mathematics.


----------



## ku4eto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> For Raven Ridge :
> 
> 4C/8T
> 11CU, 704 units, 1.2GHz for ~ 2TFlops, around RX 460 level.


Now, if AMD starts releasing cut down version of this for the mobile market, at 4C/4T, i am going to drop my money for such laptop.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> Mutlitheading doesn't change the fact that most games will still have one or two heavy threads that the rest of the threads will have to synchronize to, still creating an IPC bottleneck. Many parts of games can't be parallelized, so single threaded performance will still matter unless there is a very big paradigm shift in computer programming and mathematics.


Multi-threading might really take off this generation, both Xbox One and PS4 have 8 Jaguar cores from AMD, and they are lot weaker than Piledriver, they do fine, almost all the games from big studios will be creating games for them and they'll port it to PC bringing with them their idiosyncrasies.

Last gen, Xbox 360 and PS3 had different CPU architecture, this time both are x86_64.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ku4eto*
> 
> Now, if AMD starts releasing cut down version of this for the mobile market, at 4C/4T, i am going to drop my money for such laptop.


Rather than a cut down version I'd much prefer a lower clocked version.


----------



## Gilles3000

Must be an engineering sample, as AMD stated the lowest base clock for any Ryzen CPU would be 3.4Ghz. And engineering samples aren't always very representative of performance in every application.


----------



## CriticalOne

Multithreading is a very complicated and long process that meets the point of rapidly diminishing returns fairly easily. Not everything in a game can be multitheaded, or is even worth multithreading.

People have been saying to expect games to become a lot more parallel since the Phenom II X6 CPUs launched. Since then,what has happened is that 6 and 8 core Intel processors have at most a marginal lead over the 4 core i7 processors with there still being new games out there where the 4 core i7 is still the fastest. These 4 core i7s are still very competitive CPUs.

Would I like to see mulitthreading in video games take off? Yes. However, the chances of us getting much more performance out of games from improved multithreading is low.


----------



## Gerbacio

Im exited for intel just to have some competition !! this is great news !









however i already got a 6700k @5ghz so it would be hard for me to justify ,,,,,,,,but being that i post on Overlcok.net and im a hardcore geek.....welll


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M4c4br3*
> 
> Well, looks to be crap for gaming, but can't really see the clocks. If this thing can compete with my 6700k at 4.7ghz, then great, I love competition, but if it's even 10% slower, then I'll stick to Intel.


The gaming benchmarks are fine for 3.3-3.5GHz.

I wouldn't expect it to match your 4.7GHz 6700K if gaming is your only concern, but we'll have to see how it OCs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Must be an engineering sample, as AMD stated the lowest base clock for any Ryzen CPU would be 3.4Ghz. And engineering samples aren't always very representative of performance in every application.


This close to launch most any ES part in circulation should be almost perfectly reflective of final performance. Indeed, if it even made it beyond AMD's hands, it's probably a nearly final stepping...otherwise it wouldn't be very useful for validating the hardware/firmware ES samples are sent out for.

I'm not convinced there will be no Ryzen parts below 3.4GHz base clock either. My interpretation of Lisa Su's statement and the AMD slides was that there would be at least one 8-core Ryzen SKU with a 3.4GHz+ base clock, but not that every Ryzen SKU would be that fast.


----------



## OcCam

I look forward to a mobile raven ridge at a 35-45 watt tdp but unless AMD makes some serious inroads to get better specced devices to market, I will be dissapoint.
There isn't even a single 35 watt Bristol ridge laptop on the market. And by the benches I have seen that line of CPU's is actually competitive even at 15 watt tdp


----------



## CrazyElf

Salut Doc Teraboule! They are not bad at all, if true. Huge grain of salt though, as always.

Keep in mind that the 6900K should be our point of reference, since it is also an 8 core CPU. The other is that the 6900K costs approximately $1050 USD on Newegg right now. https://www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-19-117-645

The rumors are that Ryzen is going to be $350 USD for the 8 core and apparently $500 USD for a binned 8 core variant. Keep in mind that the motherboards for X370 on AMD are likely to be cheaper as well than X99. Zen isn't going to be the "absolute best" for those trashing on this, but it's going to be a "good enough" solution at a competitive price. That's the whole idea - price to performance and marketshare.

From a price to performance POV, that's not bad at all considering the IPC. They made their 40% IPC targets and actually exceeded them. It's close to what I expected Zen to be at.


Computer performance: 193.4 / 168.7 = 14.64 % for 6900K advantage
Gaming performance: 107.4 / 997.3 = 10.38 % for 6900K advantage
Power consumption: As in the demo, the Ryzen uses a bit less energy, 3.22% to be exact versus the 6900K.
Edit: Of course this doesn't take into account clockspeed differences (_we need to know what the release clockspeeds will be_). New information was released after this post in regards to clockspeed; will update in a post below.

The power consumption is impressive considering the Intel CPU is at 14nm and the AMD CPU is using a 14/20nm hybrid processes from Samsung made by Global Foundries. They are measuring from the ATX 12V connector as well. I would like measurements from the way,, but power consumption looks good.

It's possible that the compute performance is being weighed down by the a slow AVX implementation. I'd be very interested to see the AVX and non-AVX split, then the AVX split between AVX128 (like on Sandy Bridge) and AVX256 (introduced with Haswell).

As Blameless noted, this is pretty close to launch. We are either at release stepping or near that. Maybe a respin might give slightly higher clocks but that is it. The IPC is acceptable, and there is the possibility that this is the release clock or that it is slightly faster (not much faster this close to release silicon).

The only question is the OC headroom. It's not as good as Haswell, but if these benchmarks are true, we're at the point where it is "good enough". If it does go over 4 GHz, then it is actually a pretty good deal, if they price it they way we expect them to.

I'm actually optimistic too for the Zen Opterons. If they price it a bit aggressively (which they will), the Naples platform with its 8 channel memory controller may steal some marketshare from Intel and give AMD some much needed cash. I suspect that it is just 4 dual channel memory controllers together connected via a high speed MCM link. It's kind of like what Intel did for their HCC dies, only on separate chips. I wonder though how fast the MCM links are for Naples. That's a really interesting question.

Merci beaucoup for posting this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I don't really know why people expected different. Single core performance is still the biggest factor that determines how well a CPU performs in games.


With DX11, that is the case, because DX11 can only access one core from the GPU.

DX12 does change that, so it is no longer an assurance. So too do the games that use Vulkan.


----------



## AllGamer

so for gaming our i7-6700k is still at the top

for Brute Computing Power Zen is in 2nd place, top being the i7-6900

for Power Consumption it's in 3rd place, as in not saving much electricity


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> This close to launch most any ES part in circulation should be almost perfectly reflective of final performance. Indeed, if it even made it beyond AMD's hands, it's probably a nearly final stepping...otherwise it wouldn't be very useful for validating the hardware/firmware ES samples are sent out for.
> 
> I'm not convinced there will be no Ryzen parts below 3.4GHz base clock either. My interpretation of Lisa Su's statement and the AMD slides was that there would be at least one 8-core Ryzen SKU with a 3.4GHz+ base clock, but not that every Ryzen SKU would be that fast.


Hmmm, you're probably correct.

I don't think a 3.4Ghz minimum base clock would be unreasonable for the Ryzen desktop sku's. Some of the low power and mobile sku's will probably have lower clocks though.


----------



## raghu78

The particular Ryzen sample seems to be 3.15 Ghz base and 3.4 Ghz boost. We do not know what all core turbo is. 6900K with Turbo Boost Max 3 boosts to 3.7 Ghz across all cores depending on workload (INT or FP) and 4 Ghz for single core turbo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,4587-9.html

*"Again, let's take a look at the individual core frequencies for the three configurations we tested. Despite a 3.2GHz base clock rate, Turbo Boost pushes the CPU to 3.7GHz in lightly threaded workloads. Our sample managed to maintain this frequency across all cores during the stress test. One core even reportedly hit 4GHz."*

We need final production chip with base clocks, all core turbo and max core turbo to come to a conclusion on IPC and perf. Lisa Su already confirmed base clocks of 3.4 Ghz or higher. My guess is we will see a 8C/16T version with locked multiplier at 3.4 Ghz and a flagship SKU with unlocked multiplier at base clocks of 3.5 or 3.6 Ghz. What matters most is all core turbo and max turbo. If AMD can get to 4 Ghz max turbo then things will look much better.


----------



## tpi2007

It's not enough to stress that the clocks on the sample are more representative of an ES, even if AMD does indeed release a lower clocked 8 core chip, what we officially know is that at least one model will have _at least_ a 3.4 Ghz base clock, not to mention that 6 and 4 core variants will have to come with at least a 3.4 Ghz base clock too if they are to compete.

Anyway, from those benches at
Quote:


> Base clock : 3.15GHz
> Turbo all core : 3.3GHz
> Turbo one core : 3.5GHz


it seems to hold up well to both Broadwell-E and mainstream Skylake, *clock for clock*.


----------



## CriticalOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyElf*
> 
> With DX11, that is the case, because DX11 can only access one core from the GPU.
> 
> DX12 does change that, so it is no longer an assurance. So too do the games that use Vulkan.


DX12 titles still love strong single threaded performance.


----------



## naz2

disappointing if true


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> DX12 titles still love strong single threaded performance.
> -snip-


That Forza is bad port. We are still in the very early years of DX12 and Vulkan.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> That Forza is bad port. We are still in the very early years of DX12 and Vulkan.


Even synthetic dx12 benchmarks show that there's little to no performance gain for the API beyond 6 threads; 16 is way too many to be utilized efficiently for tasks with limited parallelization (which includes the graphics API and a lot of important game code)

Core performance is far more important than core/thread count once you hit 6 core or even 4c8t for those API's


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> DX12 titles still love strong single threaded performance.


I'd say it's got more to do with the game and the game engine itself than any intrinsic characteristic of either DX12 or Vulkan for that matter; sometimes it's just not easy or even feasible to spread out the control / main thread and why single threaded performance will always be important. Broadwell-E, for example, has a feature that identifies the strongest core so it can boost that one to 4 Ghz. Maybe we'll see more iterations of that in the future from both Intel and AMD.


----------



## CriticalOne

AMD seems to agree with me. DX12 spreads out the load more evenly, but you still have that heavy game thread.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> AMD seems to agree with me.


DX12 and Vulkan help with the rendering load, the game logic usually sits on a single thread.


----------



## geoxile

Kinda worried about the low clock speeds. I doubt 4.5+ GHz overclock will be typical.


----------



## mothergoose729

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geoxile*
> 
> Kinda worried about the low clock speeds. I doubt 4.5+ GHz overclock will be typical.


A 4.2ghz typical overclock would be fine. For enthusiasts, this thing will live and die by its IPC.

There isn't enough detail in these benchmarks to accurately access what the IPC is. The picture that is being painted though seems troubling.

We won't know for sure until Ryzen is tested at the same clock speed as four core and eight core intel cpus. My guess is that "within 10% of haswell IPC" is not accurate. Cursory inspection looks closer to sandy bridge than kaby lake.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geoxile*
> 
> Kinda worried about the low clock speeds. I doubt 4.5+ GHz overclock will be typical.


Again, those clockspeeds at which is was tested are consistent with what we heard back in the Engineering Sample days. And on top of that, we're talking about an 8 core chip, of course the clockspeeds are going to be lower. Still, we know at least one model will have a 3.4 Ghz (or higher) base clock speed.

I think it's needless to say that 6 and 4 core versions will have to be clocked _at least_ at 3.4 also (with one version having to be 4 Ghz+), and unless the architecture really sucks for that or the process isn't up to it, why shouldn't it? The 5960X is made on the same node and architecture as the 4790K and they are clocked completely differently, so let's wait and see how AMD does it on their end. With the 4C/8T 7700K coming at such high clockspeeds, they'll have to go there too, but, again, the OP is about the 8 core version clocked lower than Lisa Su already said they'd have one, don't expect it to beat a 6700K at those clocks in lightly threaded applications. In the same vein, don't expect a 6900K to beat a 6700K in games.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Turbo frequencies are the big mystery now. Worst case scenario ,this sample turbos as noted. In that case,.at equal frequencies it appears that Zen will be just a hair slower than a BWE with similar core-thread count.Best case it may even fully match it. Good news, all AMD needs now is a nicely priced hexacore with as high clocks as possible to take on 7700k for gaming.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> disappointing if true


It's falling in line if not better than realistic expectations, yet this is dissapointing? Maybe if you are one of those that hype themselves up too easily. Considering AMD's budget these numbers are excellent.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> It's falling in line if not better than realistic expectations, yet this is dissapointing? Maybe if you are one of those that hype themselves up too easily. Considering AMD's budget these numbers are excellent.


outperformed by a 6600 in gaming. let's not forget why most people buy these cpus


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mothergoose729*
> 
> A 4.2ghz typical overclock would be fine. For enthusiasts, this thing will live and die by its IPC.
> 
> There isn't enough detail in these benchmarks to accurately access what the IPC is. The picture that is being painted though seems troubling.
> 
> We won't know for sure until Ryzen is tested at the same clock speed as four core and eight core intel cpus. My guess is that "within 10% of haswell IPC" is not accurate. Cursory inspection looks closer to sandy bridge than kaby lake.


It's actually <5% behind Haswell, it's running at lower clocks.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> outperformed by a 6600 in gaming. let's not forget why most people buy these cpus


Yep, a low clocked octa is primarily aimed at gaming. That's some perfect logic right there.


----------



## Lipos

pretty good if true

now it needs to hit atleatst 4.0GHz


----------



## Horsemama1956

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> outperformed by a 6600 in gaming. let's not forget why most people buy these cpus


I game just fine on my stock i5 2500. Are you suggesting those numbers if real aren't good enough for a majority of gamers?


----------



## Derp

This performance isn't impressive but it's acceptable to me. Now it depends on the price... Will they go full AMD and try to charge $900 like they did with the FX-9590 or will they price it reasonably in hopes of gaining a huge chunk of the market?


----------



## CriticalOne

The Ryzen 8 core clocked at 3.4GHz was never going to beat the 4 core Skylake clocked at 3.3GHz and boosting to 3.9GHz. Ryzen is down on per core strength compared to Skylake and the diminishing returns of the extra 4 cores aren't enough to make up for it.


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geoxile*
> 
> Kinda worried about the low clock speeds. I doubt 4.5+ GHz overclock will be typical.


I doubt 4.5GHz OCs will happen either. But you also have to keep in mind that Intel's 8 core parts aren't exactly clocked to the moon either.


----------



## delboy67

Rep for Olivon! One thing I wonder about is temps now but all else looks great for zen.


----------



## JackCY

Meanwhile Intel is racing away and trying to hit that 5GHz they promised years ago. Because why bother making a new architecture when you can tick tock wait forever









Pricing will tell how serious AMD is about getting their foot in the door again. The CPUs don't need to be super duper fastest ever made but they need to offer the best performance/price ratio, until then they are not going to be recommended which is what killed the FX line and other including Intel's BW.
Again, most likely a server oriented not consumer oriented CPU, hence many cores and low clocks.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Meanwhile Intel is racing away and trying to hit that 5GHz they promised years ago. Because why bother making a new architecture when you can tick tock wait forever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pricing will tell how serious AMD is about getting their foot in the door again. The CPUs don't need to be super duper fastest ever made but *they need to offer the best performance/price ratio*, until then they are not going to be recommended which is what killed the FX line and other including Intel's BW.
> Again, most likely a server oriented not consumer oriented CPU, hence many cores and low clocks.


Except that didn't work, AMD has offered the best bang for the buck for several years.

The vast majority of users wouldn't be able to tell you what CPU was in their system in terms of AMD vs Intel when comparing the various tiers - if given a blind test. Yet no one purchased their hardware, even though its performance was within single digit percentiles, yet cost was a fraction.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Even synthetic dx12 benchmarks show that there's little to no performance gain for the API beyond 6 threads; 16 is way too many to be utilized efficiently for tasks with limited parallelization (which includes the graphics API and a lot of important game code)
> 
> Core performance is far more important than core/thread count once you hit 6 core or even 4c8t for those API's


All the games benched in OP are DX11. Why wouldn't new synthetic DX12 benchmarks suffer from the same problem new DX12 games suffer from? That is lack of optimization and maturity.


----------



## soth7676

As much as I wish to get ryzen I think i will pick me up a I5 6600K or I7 6700K for my next build. I still have a OEM windows 7 OS i can install and that is the latest and last CPU that will be supported on windows 7


----------



## Hattifnatten

So if I'm reading this right, in games the 6700K is roughly 20% faster while being clocked 27% higher? Meaning clock for clock Zen would outperform the 6700K in games as well?


----------



## kingduqc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kommanche*
> 
> +1 THIS. ARMA as a game benchmark is a ridiculous test for this CPU as this CPU has low clocks but high number of cores. So the fact Ryzen is competing with similarly clocked i5s is actually quite good.


The thing is, people who buy cpu to play games want it to run decently in all tittles. There is plenty of games that I play that are heavily single threaded and AMD not doing great on those title mean that 50% of my gaming is cpu bottleneck because of it.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> The thing is, people who buy cpu to play games want it to run decently in all tittles. There is plenty of games that I play that are heavily single threaded and AMD not doing great on those title mean that 50% of my gaming is cpu bottleneck because of it.


But it did show fairly 'great' performance in games, despite such relatively low clocks. We know nothing of Turbo limits or OC headroom but it appears that the core performance is there. If it can reach respectable clockspeeds it will hang with Intel's best in gaming and offer better MT performance than the mainstream line to boot. I fail to see why people are calling these numbers unimpressive.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Except that didn't work, AMD has offered the best bang for the buck for several years.
> 
> The vast majority of users wouldn't be able to tell you what CPU was in their system in terms of AMD vs Intel when comparing the various tiers - if given a blind test. Yet no one purchased their hardware, even though its performance was within single digit percentiles, yet cost was a fraction.


*cough*


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> disappointing if true


If those benchmarks are true then it isn't, it is almost matching a $1100 CPU in performance. If it is clocked at 3.4 GHz then that's a very good performance and I hope there is a good headroom for OCing, do not expect it to beat 7700K and 6700K in light threaded games which are clocked near the max at stock settings.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> The thing is, people who buy cpu to play games want it to run decently in all tittles. There is plenty of games that I play that are heavily single threaded and AMD not doing great on those title mean that 50% of my gaming is cpu bottleneck because of it.


tell me. U and me seeing the same chart??


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hattifnatten*
> 
> So if I'm reading this right, in games the 6700K is roughly 20% faster while being clocked 27% higher? Meaning clock for clock Zen would outperform the 6700K in games as well?


That is a big assumption.
It is also running between the i5 6600 and i5 6500, which are both just 4 core CPUs.
So most likely even if you could OC the ryzen to 4.2ghz, you can also do that to the 6600K, which will most likely be a lot cheaper, and could be performing better.
And if you assume you can OC it very high, heat wise and most likely the OC ceiling will be lower than what you will be able to get from the 6700K. I doubt you will be able to OC it with 20% of the 6700K or the 7700K ceiling.

Overall, I hope this isn't what actually going to come. Else it will just be another bulldozer.


----------



## sugarhell

^ Someone can't read properly..


----------



## raghu78

ok. just to add here there is a clarification from that page

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpchardware.com%2Fcpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque%2F&edit-text=

CPC Hardware @CPCHardware
*Important precision on the Zen benchs: although the Turbo max was supposed to be 3.5 GHz, our sample is never mounted at + 3.4 GHz.*

So the turbo max is 3.4 Ghz. The key again remains what clocks can final Ryzen boost to with all cores and 1 core. 6700k has a 23.5% core clock speed advantage for max turbo. 4200/3400 = 1.2352


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> If those benchmarks are true then it isn't, it is almost matching a $1100 CPU in performance. If it is clocked at 3.4 GHz then that's a very good performance and I hope there is a good headroom for OCing, do not expect it to beat 7700K and 6700K in light threaded games which are clocked near the max at stock settings.


Two things missing out.
For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


----------



## SoloCamo

At these performance numbers I would gladly trade in a slight IPC disadvantage for a lot of extra cores as there is more to computing then gaming... Especially if it can hit 3.8-4ghz. Those games shown are mostly single threaded and it did very well considering.


----------



## doritos93

I'm trying to figure out who actually ran these benches ?

Why did they choose such old games to bench ?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


These are very stark and confining role-assignments.

I game, encode, stream a bit, record gameplay, clean up photo/video, and do a bit of benching. Zen (thus far) looks as though it will perform well in all of these tasks without sacrificing too much to any single one of them. Again, I'm not seeing the issue. Near as I can tell, final clocks/Turbo and OC headroom are the big-time questions. The core performance looks perfectly acceptable in these specific unconfirmed scenarios.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD 2D3151A2M88E
> Base clock : 3.15GHz
> Turbo all core : 3.3GHz
> Turbo one core : 3.5GHz


I can read french, those Intel CPUs were all at stock.

in the first bench we have a i7-6900 running at a 3.7ghz, while ryzen was running at 3.3ghz
3.3/3.7 = 89% of the clock speed == while it performed at 87% of the i7, which is BASICALLY identical if we set both chips at the same GHZ

in the second bench we have an i7-6700 running at 4ghz while ryzen was running at 3.3ghz
3.3/4.0 = 82.5% of the clock speed == while it performed at 82.2% of the i7 which is BASICALLY identical if we set both chips at the same GHZ

looks like IPC will be pretty much identical to skylake to me...


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


There are plenty of games today that are well multithreaded, so it is probably a mistake to isolate a few low threaded games as an indication of final outcome.. Have we seen a fully implemented turbo boost yet? Probably not either, so no indication of performance in old games (which honestly is fairly insignificant). And we also have the fact that most new games coming to market now and in the future will be use DX12 and Vulkan APIs and be well threaded.
imo


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> I can read french, those Intel CPUs were all at stock.
> 
> in the first bench we have a i7-6900 running at a 3.7ghz, while ryzen was running at 3.3ghz
> 3.3/3.7 = 89% of the clock speed == while it performed at 87% of the i7, which is BASICALLY identical if we set both chips at the same GHZ
> 
> in the second bench we have an i7-6700 running at 4ghz while ryzen was running at 3.3ghz
> 3.3/4.0 = 82.5% of the clock speed == while it performed at 82.2% of the i7 which is BASICALLY identical if we set both chips at the same GHZ
> 
> looks like IPC will be pretty much identical to skylake to me...


Yeah, that's why I keep coming back to finalised base and Turbo and OC potential. I'm just not seeing the unimpressive side to the performance in terms of core strength when it comes to the gaming bit. The fact that a stock AMD CPU is sat on the 'Intel side' of the gaming graph as opposed to dwelling in the basement with Vishera seems to be a pretty good sign in terms of core performance.


----------



## octiny

Day 1.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


1. We don't know the price of 8 core Ryzen.

2. The exact same arguments could be made about the 6900k vs the 6600/6700k for gaming.. The difference is can a 6700k keep up with an 8 core like the 6900k while streaming HQ, or any other heavy tasks at the same time? No, it can't.

3. AMD aren't only releasing an 8 core Ryzen.

In those gaming graphs Ryzen looks around 10% slower than the 6900k, but it's also running around 10% lower clocks than AMD showed at their preview. We don't even know what retail Ryzen will be boosting to, the mere fact that it's keeping up with 6900k @ 3.7 while Ryzen's maximum boost in these tests is less than it's base clocks at the preview is promising to me.

But okay, Bulldozer confirmed.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> ok. just to add here there is a clarification from that page
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpchardware.com%2Fcpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque%2F&edit-text=
> 
> CPC Hardware @CPCHardware
> *Important precision on the Zen benchs: although the Turbo max was supposed to be 3.5 GHz, our sample is never mounted at + 3.4 GHz.*
> 
> So the turbo max is 3.4 Ghz. The key again remains what clocks can final Ryzen boost to with all cores and 1 core. 6700k has a 23.5% core clock speed advantage for max turbo. 4200/3400 = 1.2352


I don't understand those 3.4ghz to 4.2ghz comparisons.
If you can OC the zyran to 4.2ghz, you can also OC the i7 6700K to 4.7-4.8ghz, which keeps it at around 14% difference.
So unless you can OC the zyran to those ranges, for games, it will still be pointless to buy in most cases.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> 1. We don't know the price of 8 core Ryzen.
> 
> 2. The exact same arguments could be made about the 6900k vs the 6600/6700k for gaming.. The difference is can a 6700k keep up with an 8 core like the 6900k while streaming HQ, or any other heavy tasks at the same time? No, it can't.
> 
> *3. AMD aren't only releasing an 8 core Ryzen.*
> 
> In those gaming graphs Ryzen looks around 10% slower than the 6900k, but it's also running around 10% lower clocks than AMD showed at their preview. We don't even know what retail Ryzen will be boosting to, the mere fact that it's keeping up with 6900k @ 3.7 while Ryzen's maximum boost in these tests is less than it's base clocks at the preview is promising to me.
> 
> But okay, Bulldozer confirmed.


Point three is massive. I've been of the opinion that if we see a six-core variant, and that chip can clock a bit better than the octa, it will be the real star of the range.


----------



## IRobot23

Does this mean that ZEN is close? I mean - January 1/2 2017


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.


It might be slightly slower in single-threaded games but it will beat the Quad-core Intel CPUs handily in multi-threaded if those benchmarks are true. Gaming is only one of other factors for many people to decide a CPU purchase. Just because it is 3% slower than 6600K in games that doesn't make it a bust IMO.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see. .


This wasn't and will never be a true market target just like those who put $4000 in Quad GPUs. Most people buy things suitable for their needs and not toys for playing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


That doesn't make Zen irrelevant IMO, especially with the ability to OC is missing from those Xeons, not to mention the boards will probably be cheaper in AMDs side.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I don't understand those 3.4ghz to 4.2ghz comparisons.
> If you can OC the zyran to 4.2ghz, you can also OC the i7 6700K to 4.7-4.8ghz, which keeps it at around 14% difference.
> So unless you can OC the zyran to those ranges, for games, it will still be pointless to buy in most cases.


The difference after OC will be lower though. Because the 6700K has a 24% (4.2 vs 3.4) advantage at stock but will shrink to 12-14% (4.8-4.7/4.2) after OC.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Point three is massive. I've been of the opinion that if we see a six-core variant, and that chip can clock a bit better than the octa, it will be the real star of the range.


Exactly..

Hopefully you end up being right.


----------



## CriticalOne

The games in the benchmark represent a worse case scenario in which it [the Ryzen 8 core] is playing CPU intensive games that are more lightly threaded. These benchmarks provide more information than if they went with the best case scenarios.

I know that the octo core processor is seen as the halo product that you should buy if you can, but its more likely that the 6 and the 4 core processor is going to be better for gaming. I wouldn't consider the 8 core if all you do is game, unless you hope to get a good overclock and/or you run other heavy processes in the background as you game.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> The games in the benchmark represent a worse case scenario in which it [the Ryzen 8 core] is playing CPU intensive games that are more lightly threaded. These benchmarks provide more information than if they went with the best case scenarios.
> 
> I know that the octo core processor is seen as the halo product that you should buy if you can, but its more likely that the 6 and the 4 core processor is going to be better for gaming. I wouldn't consider the 8 core if all you do is game, unless you hope to get a good overclock and/or you run other heavy processes in the background as you game.


Well, FX 8350 is clocked higher yet perform worse. I would love to see 4C/8T against FX in apps and games.


----------



## Xuper

Here I do play 2xRift(2 account) , with FireFox, Opera, Vivaldi and Xampp-control (Joomla). sooner I will do Relive.so i buy this Ryzen.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I don't understand those 3.4ghz to 4.2ghz comparisons.
> If you can OC the zyran to 4.2ghz, you can also OC the i7 6700K to 4.7-4.8ghz, which keeps it at around 14% difference.
> So unless you can OC the zyran to those ranges, for games, it will still be pointless to buy in most cases.


Actually we need to know all the information based on reviews of final retail chip before concluding anything. Avg IPC, Base clocks, All core turbo, Max turbo, Max OC and most importantly *PRICE*.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> There are plenty of games today that are well multithreaded, so it is probably a mistake to isolate a few low threaded games as an indication of final outcome.. Have we seen a fully implemented turbo boost yet? Probably not either, so no indication of performance in old games (which honestly is fairly insignificant). And we also have the fact that most new games coming to market now and in the future will be use DX12 and Vulkan APIs and be well threaded.
> imo


While true, if you are buying a CPU which gives you a small edge in 2-3 games, but gives the opposite in every other game, what real choice do you have? Pay for an overall less performing package just because?
Also we have seen that a game using DX12 or vulkan, it doesn't necessarily impact on CPU choice, so I wouldn't go that far.
Doom vulkan reviews showed that the game engine doesn't really utilise higher cpu core count.
You expect game engine developers to really develop for multi CPU core, but so far, they have moved very little to that direction.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> These are very stark and confining role-assignments.
> 
> I game, encode, stream a bit, record gameplay, clean up photo/video, and do a bit of benching. Zen (thus far) looks as though it will perform well in all of these tasks without sacrificing too much to any single one of them. Again, I'm not seeing the issue. Near as I can tell, final clocks/Turbo and OC headroom are the big-time questions. The core performance looks perfectly acceptable _in these specific unconfirmed scenarios_.


And yet it looks like the 6700K will give you the same thing, with just higher FPS on games. If you are willing to pay in FPS to save a few seconds of video editing and encoding, that is your call.
If you mainly game, what will be the point?


----------



## Imglidinhere

I find it worthwhile news. a 35% boost over Piledriver isn't too far off what they predicted. UP TO 40% better IPC, and if it's on average around a 35% improvement, why's that a bad thing?

I hope AMD produces a worthy processor... we *need* this to happen.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Actually we need to know all the information based on reviews of final retail chip before concluding anything. Avg IPC, Base clocks, All core turbo, Max turbo, Max OC and most importantly *PRICE*.


I'm not saying we don't.
But, how much low do you think AMD can underprice it? 500$? 450$? lower? Do you think they can sell it for 220$ which is the price of the i5 6600 which out-performed the zyran in games?

I'm actually more interested in their lower core CPUs, 4/8 or 6/12, which hopefully the can bring them out at higher clocks, and maybe higher OC ceiling, to actually fight against the intel mainstream CPUs. Because that zyran, is so far based on those numbers, isn't going to.


----------



## doritos93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> I find it worthwhile news. a 35% boost over Piledriver isn't too far off what they predicted. UP TO 40% better IPC, and if it's on average around a 35% improvement, why's that a bad thing?
> 
> I hope AMD produces a worthy processor... we *need* this to happen.


I think it's being interpreted "bad" because Zen isn't at the top of the gaming chart, a chart that shows the bench results of games from 3+ years ago. Just look at the 2nd post in this thread, totally clueless

It boggles my mind why this person who was lucky enough to get a ES chip didn't choose to bench titles from this year, most of which that were developed to run on modern hardware


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


6, 8 and 10 core intel variants still lag behind the 6700k in 90% of games but that didn't stop 4+ core chips from selling.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I'm not saying we don't.
> But, how much low do you think AMD can underprice it? 500$? 450$? lower? Do you think they can sell it for 220$ which is the price of the i5 6600 which out-performed the zyran in games?
> 
> I'm actually more interested in their lower core CPUs, 4/8 or 6/12, which hopefully the can bring them out at higher clocks, and maybe higher OC ceiling, to actually fight against the intel mainstream CPUs. Because that zyran, is so far based on those numbers, isn't going to.


Ryzen 8 core isn't set to compete with the 6700k in gaming. AMD hasn't marketed it that either. So far its been compared to the 6900k.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Point three is massive. I've been of the opinion that if we see a six-core variant, and that chip can clock a bit better than the octa, it will be the real star of the range.


Considering how the FX line up did actually include a quad core variant, is it too outlandish to believe that they could include 4c/8t zen chips with the very similar IPC, higher clocks, and an even lower price than the hexacores? Were this the case, is it possible for us to see such a part priced similarly to mid tier i5's (~$200) that boasts all of the multi threading benefits of an i7? Though I may be getting my hopes up too high, my real hope for zen is that it drastically raises the bar for the mid-end markets and makes a compelling alternative to the i3 line.

Seriously, someone please answer me. I'm new here and have been wondering about this.


----------



## Vesku

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> That is a big assumption.
> It is also running between the i5 6600 and i5 6500, which are both just 4 core CPUs.
> So most likely even if you could OC the ryzen to 4.2ghz, you can also do that to the 6600K, which will most likely be a lot cheaper, and could be performing better.
> And if you assume you can OC it very high, heat wise and most likely the OC ceiling will be lower than what you will be able to get from the 6700K. I doubt you will be able to OC it with 20% of the 6700K or the 7700K ceiling.
> 
> Overall, I hope this isn't what actually going to come. Else it will just be another bulldozer.


Are you serious? This is the 8 core part running at 3.4GHz. Looks like AMD can have competitive 4 and 6 core SKUs versus Skylake/Kabylake socket 1151 SKUs by clocking a bit higher in each price bracket. Especially if AMD is less stingy on enabling SMT on low-mid SKUs.

They probably won't have a 4c/8t that turbos enough to beat 6700/7700 but they could offer a 6c/12t in same price category. Or box in the 6700/7700 with 4c/8t below and 8c/16t above.


----------



## octiny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> 6, 8 and 10 core intel variants still lag behind the 6700k in 90% of games but that didn't stop 4+ core chips from selling.


QFT


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Considering how the FX line up did actually include a quad core variant, is it too outlandish to believe that they could include 4c/8t zen chips with the very similar IPC, higher clocks, and an even lower price than the hexacores? Were this the case, is it possible for us to see such a part priced similarly to mid tier i5's (~$200) that boasts all of the multi threading benefits of an i7? Though I may be getting my hopes up too high, my real hope for zen is that it drastically raises the bar for the mid-end markets and makes a compelling alternative to the i3 line.
> 
> Seriously, someone please answer me. I'm new here and have been wondering about this.


The old FX line didn't show good performance with anything less than 8 cores but If Zen arc is anything like intels then smaller core variants will offer great bang for the buck. Single thread performance might decrease with more cores while multithreaded performance scales appropriately.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I'm not saying we don't.
> But, how much low do you think AMD can underprice it? 500$? 450$? lower? Do you think they can sell it for 220$ which is the price of the i5 6600 which out-performed the zyran in games?
> 
> I'm actually more interested in their lower core CPUs, 4/8 or 6/12, which hopefully the can bring them out at higher clocks, and maybe higher OC ceiling, to actually fight against the intel mainstream CPUs. Because that zyran, is so far based on those numbers, isn't going to.


Just Stop it right now.Wait for 4c/8T then come here.AMD didn't say it will direct compete to Core i7-6700K.Rival is 6900K , not 6700K.For gaming AMD will launch new CPU with 4C/8T.Just wait.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> And yet it looks like the 6700K will give you the same thing, with just higher FPS on games. If you are willing to pay in FPS to save a few seconds of video editing and encoding, that is your call.
> If you mainly game, what will be the point?


Not necessarily. The 6900k / Zen both have demonstrable superior streaming performance at higher settings.. even my 3930k handles certain streaming loads better than the 6700k that I had. As to editing and encoding, again that depends on workloads and job size.. some tasks scale very well with additional cores/threads, more than a 'few seconds' worth. If the Zen clocks well enough and the gaming performance is within 10-15% of a 6700k, then yes, my call would be to take more cores and threads. I think you're being too binary in your assessment.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Considering how the FX line up did actually include a quad core variant, is it too outlandish to believe that they could include 4c/8t zen chips with the very similar IPC, higher clocks, and an even lower price than the hexacores? Were this the case, is it possible for us to see such a part priced similarly to mid tier i5's (~$200) that boasts all of the multi threading benefits of an i7? Though I may be getting my hopes up too high, my real hope for zen is that it drastically raises the bar for the mid-end markets and makes a compelling alternative to the i3 line.
> 
> Seriously, someone please answer me. I'm new here and have been wondering about this.
> 
> I would think that it's very likely.


----------



## tpi2007

I made a translation using tpi2007-rusty-French-super-translate-algorithm for those interested:
Quote:


> *Computing performance*
> 
> _H.264 1080p & H.265 4K encoding, WPrime, PovRay 3.7, Blender 3D, 3DSMax 2015 / Mental Ray, Corona Benchmark_
> 
> With its eight real cores, Zen achieves some prowess despite the limited 3.3 Ghz frequency. It even gets dangerously close - for Intel - to the Core i7-6900K, offering performance comparable to that of the i7-5960X at the same frequency (3.3 Ghz Tubo mode). The allegations made by AMD a few months ago seem to be true in practice and that's excellent news. Compared to the FX-8370, we noted a performance gain of around 35% at the same clocks, in line with AMD's predictions (40%).
> 
> (Note from me: concerning the last sentence, that's actually not what AMD said, they said 40% more IPC compared to Excavator. Here they are comparing it against a Piledriver CPU, which is two revisions prior. In any case, more IPC and more performance don't have to necessarily 100% match.)
> 
> *Gaming Performance*
> 
> _Far Cry 4, GRID: Autosport, Battlefield 4, Arma III, X3: TC, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Anno 2070_
> 
> If the results may seem disappointing in face of the average of the games tested, it should be kept in mind that the prototype tested is an eight core with an especially low base frequency (in particular Turbo mode). Now, games are still very sensitive to clockspeeds and have a hard time benefiting from more than 4 cores. It's thus difficult in these conditions to compare it against an i7-6700K, where the clocks surpass 4 Ghz. Notwithstanding, the Zen architecture proves itself to an effectiveness degree that we haven't seen from AMD in a long time.
> 
> *Power consumption*
> 
> _Measured at full load (in watts)_
> 
> The power consumption measurement of the Zen CPU was made with a current clamp at the ATX 12V connector at full load. While true that it's less precise than the ones we usually make with an oscilloscope, it gives a good idea of the performance of Global Foundries' 14nm LPP process. Once we remove the parts related to the motherboard's VRMs, we estimate that the CPU uses a little less than 90w, a number very close to that of a 6900K. A result that is a good indication for what comes next.
> 
> The Zen architecture should allow AMD to make a serious comeback in the CPU market, including the high-end segment that they abandoned for a long time. Intel risks a setback, which is a well deserved consequence of years of laxity and arrogance (the Core i7-6950X at 1900 euros is the perfect illustration). Do we expect a return of true competition in the CPU market? Not everything is yet won by AMD. While it does seem that the eight core CPUs are on the right track, the CPU maker must rapidly finalize the four core derivatives with noticeably higher clockspeeds than current prototypes: 3.8, looking into 4 or 4.2 Ghz seem to us the minimum to tickle the latest Kaby Lake CPUs. At last, there is still one unknown: the pricing. While certain rumours talk about a rather low price list, we doubt that AMD will sell them at sales prices now that it at last has an opportunity to recover from its years of losses. Above all, it shouldn't crap itself on the final straight...


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Does this mean that ZEN is close? I mean - January 1/2 2017


Dr. Su said Zen would be Q1 2017, likely looking at February or March, but we could be blown away with a January release.


----------



## Vesku

I'm expecting the 8 core Zen to be priced at least $400 possibly higher. If we're lucky there might be a $300-350 SKU.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> *While true, if you are buying a CPU which gives you a small edge in 2-3 games, but gives the opposite in every other game, what real choice do you have? Pay for an overall less performing package just because?
> Also we have seen that a game using DX12 or vulkan, it doesn't necessarily impact on CPU choice, so I wouldn't go that far.*
> Doom vulkan reviews showed that the game engine doesn't really utilise higher cpu core count.
> You expect game engine developers to really develop for multi CPU core, but so far, they have moved very little to that direction.
> And yet it looks like the 6700K will give you the same thing, with just higher FPS on games. If you are willing to pay in FPS to save a few seconds of video editing and encoding, that is your call.
> If you mainly game, what will be the point?


Well, you are basing that on the premise that there will be only 2-3 games that will be well threaded in the future while all others will be lightly threaded and coded for outdated APIs. I think that is a faulty assumption given that it was announced not long ago that there are at least 15 DX12 games in development for a 2017 release. Also likely to be more Vulkan titles announced and released. I think it's safe to assume that DX12 and Vulkan are the APIs being used for most games being released currently and in development for the future. They'll probably also be developed for the new APIs from the ground up as opposed to most titles today that are only patched to run a DX12 or Vulkan code path.


----------



## Tojara

I'm wondering where they got the 35% performance increase from. In compute Zen has at least 88% higher performance perf clock with SMT, in games it's 55%, and I'm pretty sure none of the games they tested even used SMT on an octacore.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vesku*
> 
> I'm expecting the 8 core Zen to be priced at least $400 possibly higher. If we're lucky there might be a $300-350 SKU.


Though I've heard this thrown around the rumor mill, I still find it incredibly unlikely. It makes no sense to price something in a bracket with products it isn't competing against. I even suspect that $500 is a little too low, and would be more optimistic of $600-$700. The reason being that if you price a product close to another, such as the 6700K, it will be compared to that product. As has been pointed out, there are different applications for Ryzen and the intel mainstream.

I am, however, open to different opinions and VERY open to an ultra cheap (relatively speaking) octacore chip, so long as we, and the market as a whole, keep in mind that this chip is not necessarily designed just for gaming.


----------



## Newwt

The more info and leak details that come out, the more SR5 6/12 looks better and better. Now we just need the prices...

AMD has already stated they are out of the Dual core market, and that all CPUs will have SMT enabled. With the Zen CPUs all coming from the same die, IPC will be the same and you just need to choose a chip based in your price range and core/clock needs. Need high clocks for gaming go 4/8 need more power for multitasking get the 8/16, want a mid range chip with lots of thread and can hit ~4.2ghz(guessing) get the 6/12.


----------



## ThePath

35% performance increase at same clock ?! And Ryzen have lower clock speed than piledriver so that gap won't be big if this is true


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> 35% performance increase at same clock ?! And Ryzen have lower clock speed than piledriver so that gap won't be big if this is true


Well it's 8 cores with simultaneous multithreading, so in well threaded programs you'll see a decent improvement.


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> [. Power consumption is really good too.
> 
> .


Care to explain how power consumption is really good ?! Maybe good improvement over AMD FX, but compared to i7 6900K, the difference was so small. i7 6900K performs better, broadwell-E seems to have better performance per watt despite being almost 1 year older


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geoxile*
> 
> Well it's 8 cores with simultaneous multithreading, so in well threaded programs you'll see a decent improvement.


Or they've done their math wrong, which seems to be the case here.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Except that didn't work, AMD has offered the best bang for the buck for several years.


In many cases this wasn't true.

The entire AM3+ platform had fairly poor value over the course of it's run, except in a handful of niches. This is especially true once OCing is factored, because AM3+ rapidly become the more expensive platform (relative to Intel's mainstream) as you factor in what's necessary to push the eight-core FX parts.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


These uses are at once overly vague and overly limited. We still need to see how Zen is priced and how it will OC, but the performance we have here is all-round quite competitive and there are far more people that use their systems for a mix of task than ones who have a different system for each task or who only do one thing with a computer.

If a game does well on a 6600K, it will do well on a quad-core Ryzen and with SMT, the Ryzen will likely do better in quite a few other areas, even some games.

There are all sorts of benchers and benchmark criteria. A very significant portion of benching is done to see what's possible with a given architecture. If the benchmark scores themselves were the only relevant factor, most of the benchmarking we see in the news would never have occured.

"Workstation use" is an impossibly broad category, and an 8c/16t Zen would outperform the Xeons you mention in most areas.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> It boggles my mind why this person who was lucky enough to get a ES chip didn't choose to bench titles from this year, most of which that were developed to run on modern hardware


I didn't have any problem with the game selection. Most of those games are still quite popular and people don't just stop playing what they like because they have new hardware.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world that isn't rushing to get the newest titles then forgetting about them a month later.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> 6, 8 and 10 core intel variants still lag behind the 6700k in 90% of games but that didn't stop 4+ core chips from selling.


Because they can do plenty of things faster than quad-cores and can do a few things quad cores can't do at all.


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Or they've done their math wrong, which seems to be the case here.


Well it depends on how high the final clocks are, but 3.4 to 4.4 or something is about 33%, so the effective difference won't be huge because of Piledriver's high clocks.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> [. Power consumption is really good too.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain how power consumption is really good ?! Maybe good improvement over AMD FX, but compared to i7 6900K, the difference was so small. i7 6900K performs better, broadwell-E seems to have better performance per watt despite being almost 1 year older
Click to expand...

AMD has seemingly demonstrated that they have managed to up the clockspeed from the 3.1 Ghz base in the OP to 3.4 Ghz while maintaining the same power consumption profile compared to the 6900K and they are saying that they aren't done yet. Being conservative on this, let's assume that they get 3.5 Ghz base at the same 95w TDP. That's not bad at all.


----------



## Blameless

Going from about 20% of BW-E performance per watt (with Vishera) to somewhere in the ballpark of 95% of BW-E performance per watt is a damn impressive feat.


----------



## Lipos

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-154#post-38646829

Mhhh... Illuminati confirmed?


----------



## nakano2k1

Intel spends on average 12 billion dollars on R&D annually. AMD spends barely north of 1 billion.

HOW ARE THESE NUMBERS NOT IMPRESSIVE??


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-154#post-38646829
> 
> Mhhh... Illuminati confirmed?


Isn't Canard PC also the host of the CPU-Z submissions and the author of CPU-Z isn't french? My bet is that he somehow gets access to these CPUs in advance (Kaby Lake had CPU-Z preliminary support in August, for example) and then other people get to take a peak too.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Intel spends on average 12 billion dollars on R&D annually. AMD spends barely north of 1 billion.
> 
> HOW ARE THESE NUMBERS NOT IMPRESSIVE??


because consumers don't buy products based on sympathy points?


----------



## Carniflex

This is interesting. Perhaps AMD can indeed deliver this time something that puts them back into picture for some builds outside of extreme low budget APU things.


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> because consumers don't buy products based on sympathy points?


I'm not sure hes talking as a consumer, but as someone enthusiastic about computing/CPUs/technology/etc.

I mean if you were just someone buying a CPU looking for price or performance or whatever, you probably don't care whats going on beyond the shelf, but I think a good bulk of people here on this site, would be interested in seeing how AMD managed to claw its way back from Bulldozer architecture, to something that could potentially compete with some of Intel's latest stuff.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> I'm not sure hes talking as a consumer, but as someone enthusiastic about computing/CPUs/technology/etc.
> 
> I mean if you were just someone buying a CPU looking for price or performance or whatever, you probably don't care whats going on beyond the shelf, but I think a good bulk of people here on this site, would be interested in seeing how AMD managed to claw its way back from Bulldozer architecture, to something that could potentially compete with some of Intel's latest stuff.


sure, but i'm still not gonna buy a worse product regardless of how valiant their effort is


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> sure, but i'm still not gonna buy a worse product regardless of how valiant their effort is


Zen is not worse.by looking at Bench , It's time that everyone should leave their shady behaviour.they try not Compare it to 6700K.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> In many cases this wasn't true.
> 
> The entire AM3+ platform had fairly poor value over the course of it's run, except in a handful of niches. This is especially true once OCing is factored, because AM3+ rapidly become the more expensive platform (relative to Intel's mainstream) as you factor in what's necessary to push the eight-core FX parts.


Your argument is something that a minuscule number of people (Us) are impacted by. The processors are cheaper, the motherboards were cheaper, and they performed to a point that you wouldn't know what was what in a blind test.

There is no value proposition you could make towards Intel, and I am shocked you would even try to do it.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Zen is not worse.by looking at Bench , It's time that everyone should leave their shady behaviour.they try not Compare it to 6700K.


well it's probably gonna be close enough for price to become the deciding factor. hopefully amd doesn't f it up


----------



## dagget3450

It's not just the performance of the first release. It is most likely to be improved upon and compete or be better than intel offerings. You don't have to like AMD but, at least hope they compete because that brings pricing(intel included) down for consumers.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> Care to explain how power consumption is really good ?! Maybe good improvement over AMD FX, but compared to i7 6900K, the difference was so small. i7 6900K performs better, broadwell-E seems to have better performance per watt despite being almost 1 year older


Obviously Intel had large lead, AMD didn't outrun Intel. Thus power consumption per instruction would likely be higher than Intel, and perhaps even with Intel including FIVR. The low power consumption can be simply explained by 14 nm, and 0.800 V or so. What voltage is required on Intel for 3.3 GHz? I ran my i5-6600K on 25W. 25W * 2 = 50W. Rizen has 93 W.

I find it interesting that Intel wants to use 2.9-3.4 for its mainstream 14 nm CPUs. And Ryzen looks quite low speed as well.


----------



## prava

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


I don't understand.

Ryzen is a whole family of cpus, and we are talking about one specific sku, the 8/16. Do you understand the uses of an 8/16 chip? It isn't a chip to be properly used for games, obviously. The 6/12 or even the 4/8 will be.

Also, why would you compare the 8/16 with the ancient E5-2620? Do you realise that simply by specs the Ryzen 8/16 should be at least 50% faster than the E5-2620 that you mention? It is only an 6/12 with 2/2.5ghz clock.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> The games in the benchmark represent a worse case scenario in which it [the Ryzen 8 core] is playing CPU intensive games that are more lightly threaded. These benchmarks provide more information than if they went with the best case scenarios.
> 
> *I know that the octo core processor is seen as the halo product that you should buy if you can, but its more likely that the 6 and the 4 core processor is going to be better for gaming*. I wouldn't consider the 8 core if all you do is game, unless you hope to get a good overclock and/or you run other heavy processes in the background as you game.


Exactly!

Just as nobody would ever consider a 6900K for games... why would anyone consider the 8/16? If you only game you go for a 6700K / 7700K. In the case of AMD, you will take the 4/8 or 6/12 variant. Never the 8/16.

I thought this was obvious from the get-go.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things missing out.
> For gamers, if those charts are true, it is a bust. a 4c/8t which will most likely be priced similar if AMD really under price it, will completely beat it. Even a i5 6600K will most likely beat it in games.
> For benchers, they will care about the overall package (memory channels, memory performance, OC ceiling etc), which I don't know if it will deliver, so there is still time to see.
> For workstation usage, whom I don't see most of them OCing, it is going to have to go against the E5-2620 v4 or E5-2609 v4 which are relatively cheap.


What if you want to use it as a workstation and gaming PC and stream? Then what?

It's superior to the i7-6800K hexcore in the multithreaded tasks, which is a feat already.

Your outlook is worrying since this shows it being on par with a similarly clocked skylake i5s and about 30% more performance in gaming against a higher clocked FX-8370.

i5-6600K = 3.5-3.9Ghz , 91W
i5-6600 = 3.3-3.9Ghz , 65W
i5-6500 = 3.2-3.6Ghz , 65W
i5-6400 = 2.7-3.3Ghz , 65W

Keep in mind the SR5 hexcore and SR3 quadcore parts will likely be scavenged from the SR7 parts ; with lower core count there will likely be more overclocking headroom.

I'm really eyeing the SR5 hexcore due to scaling past 6 physical cores generally having diminished returns for non-parallelized code

Core scaling :
http://www.jeuxvideo.com/dossier/498894/nvidia-gtx-1070-notre-test-de-la-seconde-carte-pascal-du-fabricant/498969.htm


----------



## FLCLimax

Day 1 Purchase.


----------



## TerroZivi

With these numbers and a bit higher clockspeed AMD is the way to go for each sane consumer.


----------



## ryan92084

Looking forward to being able to do an AMD build again.


----------



## tajoh111

Very impressive showing for zen. Not a haswell killer but a ivy bridge killer and considering the likely price difference, this is huge for AMD. Hopefully this overclocks but for some reason I have my doubts for clocking.


----------



## CrazyElf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> I can read french, those Intel CPUs were all at stock.
> 
> in the first bench we have a i7-6900 running at a 3.7ghz, while ryzen was running at 3.3ghz
> 3.3/3.7 = 89% of the clock speed == while it performed at 87% of the i7, which is BASICALLY identical if we set both chips at the same GHZ
> 
> in the second bench we have an i7-6700 running at 4ghz while ryzen was running at 3.3ghz
> 3.3/4.0 = 82.5% of the clock speed == while it performed at 82.2% of the i7 which is BASICALLY identical if we set both chips at the same GHZ
> 
> looks like IPC will be pretty much identical to skylake to me...


Yes (or should we say "oui") .... I did not take into account clockspeed in my initial assessment, because I was operating under the assumption that these would be the release clockspeeds and overclock would be comparable to Intel. Of course, that is purely conjecture on my part.

AMD 2D3151A2M88E
Base clock : 3.15GHz
Turbo all core : 3.3GHz
Turbo one core : 3.5GHz

Anyways, the clockspeeds have since been released since my first post here. The IPC is actually quite strong on Ryzen if you think about it.

The 6900K is:
Base clock: 3.20 GHz
Turbo clock: 3.70 GHz

The problem is that we don't know in which of these benchmarks was full turbo for all cores, one core, or no turbo used. It makes for a very apples to oranges comparison. What we need is the release specs and overclocking headroom.

The takeaway though is that clock for clock, it is going to be a fight. In some areas it does very well, to Skylake levels, and in other areas, it will fall behind Haswell.

They didn't copy Intel so there are going to be different strengths and weaknesses.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Again, those clockspeeds at which is was tested are consistent with what we heard back in the Engineering Sample days. And on top of that, we're talking about an 8 core chip, of course the clockspeeds are going to be lower. Still, we know at least one model will have a 3.4 Ghz (or higher) base clock speed.
> 
> I think it's needless to say that 6 and 4 core versions will have to be clocked _at least_ at 3.4 also (with one version having to be 4 Ghz+), and unless the architecture really sucks for that or the process isn't up to it, why shouldn't it? The 5960X is made on the same node and architecture as the 4790K and they are clocked completely differently, so let's wait and see how AMD does it on their end. With the 4C/8T 7700K coming at such high clockspeeds, they'll have to go there too, but, again, the OP is about the 8 core version clocked lower than Lisa Su already said they'd have one, don't expect it to beat a 6700K at those clocks in lightly threaded applications. In the same vein, don't expect a 6900K to beat a 6700K in games.


The release clockspeed isn't a failure by any stretch of the imagination. We expect that an 8 core will be slower than a 4 core.

Let's not forget the 5960X was 3 GHz base, 3.5 GHz turbo, and that typical overclocks (game stable) were 4.4 to 4.6 GHz, with a few golden chips going up to 4.7 GHz. The 5960X was by no means, a failure. It and the 5820K were successful Haswell E chips that were only slightly slower than their 4 core counterparts in single threaded performance, while offering much better multithreaded performance, quad channel RAM, and a larger cache.

The architecture doesn't suck from what we can tell so that looks good. The only question is, how much can we OC this chip by?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> DX12 titles still love strong single threaded performance.
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> IMG ALT=""]http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2929481/width/350/height/700[/IMG]


It depends on the port. All games are going to love strong single threaded performance to a point.

But DX12 offers the _potential_ for the GPU to access multiple cores simultaneously. It will be up to the developer to do adopt the latest and to code for the GPU to access multiple cores. Before that DX11 didn't even allow for that.

I think that we should keep in mind that when overclocked, the 6 and 8 cores are only slightly slower (for example, a typical 4790K overclock is 4.7 to 4.9 GHz with a few golden chips at 5 GHz, whereas a 5820K or 5960X was 4.4 to 4.6 GHz, with a few golden 4.7 GHz chips). I'm comparing Haswell since that's the chip that we have the most information around (Broadwell 5770C wasn't very widely adopted and although there was some excitement for Broadwell E, it didn't get the amount of attention that previous generations of CPUs received.

The point though is that we are about to reach a point where for many games, perhaps even most games, the Haswell E chip will be a better buy _for gaming_, not just embarrassingly parallel applications like Blender. Likewise, the 6 and 8 core Zen chips, being more aggressively priced at the expense of single threaded performance may be a better buy for gaming as well, especially considering what Intel is offering.

Unless Intel lowers its prices substantially, I'd argue that from the price;performance standpoint, AMD is doing very well.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I didn't have any problem with the game selection. Most of those games are still quite popular and people don't just stop playing what they like because they have new hardware.
> 
> Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world that isn't rushing to get the newest titles then forgetting about them a month later.


Same here. There are lots of older games that people play. Some of them are demanding even.

The problem is that people always want to see the benchmarks on the latest and greatest. The other is that we may not play what is the most popular.

Personally, I would like special use cases to be benchmarked: In the case of CPUs, CPU-bound gaming titles (like Cities Skylines in a city with a huge population is surprisingly demanding) are more important than GPU bound games. Simulators are great for that reason, as are strategy games (I'm into the Total War series, although I wish they'd move away from Warscape). CPU heavy situations like Battlefield Multiplayer on the largest map sizes, are more important than GPU bound situations.


Spoiler: Potential sample




Most GPU demanding game should always be benchmarked in terms of GPU core use
Most GPU VRAM demanding game should be benchmarked
Some very CPU heavy games should be benchmarked
Specific genres should be benchmarked (Ex: Total War; Warhammer might be the choice for strategy, while Elite: Dangerous might be a choice for space simulators)




I think that we are reaching the point that the arguments about "Future Proof" might be valid now for more than 4 cores, even if it does come at a moderate loss in clockspeed. In the case of Haswell E versus Haswell, it was only perhaps 200-300 MHz overclocked.

On Zen, from what I can tell, unless Zen is an utterly terrible overclocker, seems like a solid release. The IPC looks good and unlike Bulldozer, it is not a power inefficient pig. AMD does look like it is back. Nobody seriously expects an 8 core CPU to be the same clockspeed as a 4 core.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Going from about 20% of BW-E performance per watt (with Vishera) to somewhere in the ballpark of 95% of BW-E performance per watt is a damn impressive feat.


This is a more impressive jump than Intel's Prescott to Conroe to Nehalem if you think about it. It's apples to oranges of course - for Conroe they "scaled up" a mobile Pentium M architecture into a very nice IPC gain. Then for Nehalem they added in the IMC, made their first quad core die (Kenstfield and I think the 45nm versions of Conroe, Penryn, was a 2 core MCM package) and of course there were substantial performance gains.

Even more so when you consider the shoestring R&D budget that Intel had compared to Intel.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Very impressive showing for zen. Not a haswell killer but a ivy bridge killer and considering the likely price difference, this is huge for AMD. Hopefully this overclocks but for some reason I have my doubts for clocking.


Everything points to it being on par with a 6900K, how is it not an Haswell killer? Even at 3/4 the cost of the 6900K this destroys Haswell.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Everything points to it being on par with a 6900K, how is it not an Ivy killer? Even at 3/4 the cost of the 6900K this destroys Ivy.


I guess that's what happens when the table isn't in English, people tend to just look at the shiny bars.. It seems quite a few haven't figured out that this isn't the final product, and this sample's boost is lower than the base clock of the one at AMD's preview..

During gaming i don't see why the 6900k's cores wouldn't be running at 3.7+ (in some reviews I remember seeing cores hit 4.0). Vs the gimped 8 core Ryzen @ ~3.3, lets also not forget the 6900k costs $1100+.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> In many cases this wasn't true.
> 
> The entire AM3+ platform had fairly poor value over the course of it's run, except in a handful of niches. This is especially true once OCing is factored, because AM3+ rapidly become the more expensive platform (relative to Intel's mainstream) as you factor in what's necessary to push the eight-core FX parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is something that a minuscule number of people (US) are impacted by. The processors are cheaper, the motherboards were cheaper, and they performed to a point that you wouldn't know what was what in a blind test.
> 
> There is no value proposition you could make towards Intel, and I am shocked you would even try to do it.
Click to expand...

So...

you have a system with a CPU that pushes 62 fps to the left and one that pushes 47 fps to the right. In a blind test they feel the same.

Of course you pick the weaker one because nobody factors in longevity and the future situation where the faster CPU will still be pushing 47 fps and the slower one a sluggish 27, right?

In 2011 nobody could say with a straight face that the FX-8150 was a better value than the i7-2600K because it was cheaper at $245 versus $317 for the i7. If you wanted only gaming, the 2500K was even better value, at $216.

And I'll add that if you wanted the Bulldozer to do threaded work mainly, you still needed a discrete GPU to have graphics output, whereas the i7 already came with one. And then there was the power consumption over its lifespan.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Everything points to it being on par with a 6900K, how is it not an Ivy killer? Even at 3/4 the cost of the 6900K this destroys Ivy.


Read what I said again slowly.


----------



## Mahigan

Je parle francais alors je comprend tout ce qui est ecrit dans l'article.

I speak french so I understood the entire review. Basically... AMD is back in the CPU market. They had a lower clocked RyZen sample with barely no boost and they mentioned that since most games only truly use 4 cores, then the clock speed makes quite a difference. This is why we see a 4GHz+ Intel 6700K taking first place.

It all depends on the clocks for RyZen. We know that it will be 3.4GHz+ with a Turbo. If that turbo is something like 3.7GHz+ then Intel is really going to have some competition now and that's my next CPU.


----------



## tpi2007

For those that missed it, I made a translation of the article, it's post #92, here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1619110/cpc-first-unofficial-ryzen-benchmarks/90_30#post_25730623


----------



## Mahigan

Here's the translation (converting French expressions to English as well):
Quote:


> The Zen architecture allows AMD a serious return onto the CPU market, including a return to the high performance segment which AMD seemed to have abandoned a long time ago. Intel therefore risks suffering a violent market backlash, the consequences of which are well deserved after years of arrogant laziness ( a Core i7 6950X at 1,900 Euros is a perfect example of this). If we hope for a return to real competition on the CPU market, everything is not yet won for AMD. While it is true that the octo-core model seems to perform very well, the maker has to immediately finalize the specs of the various quad-core RyZen models and ensure that they're equipped with clock-speeds which are much higher than the prototype we tested today: see 3.8GHz, 4GHz or even 4.2GHz seems to us to be the minimum needed to compete with Intel's latest Kaby Lake architecture. Finally, there remains an unknown as to the various models and prices. If certain rumors speak of low prices, we are not convinced that AMD would sell its CPU's for such a low price when they finally have an occasion to catch up to years of economic losses.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Here's the translation (converting French expressions to English as well):
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zen architecture allows AMD a serious return onto the CPU market, including a return to the high performance segment which AMD seemed to have abandoned a long time ago. Intel therefore risks suffering a violent market backlash, the consequences of which are well deserved after years of arrogant laziness ( a Core i7 6950X at 1,900 Euros is a perfect example of this). If we hope for a return to real competition on the CPU market, everything is not yet won for AMD. While it is true that the octo-core model seems to perform very well, the maker has to immediately finalize the specs of the various quad-core RyZen models and ensure that they're equipped with clock-speeds which are much higher than the prototype we tested today: see 3.8GHz, 4GHz or even 4.2GHz seems to us to be the minimum needed to compete with Intel's latest Kaby Lake architecture. Finally, there remains an unknown as to the various models and prices. If certain rumors speak of low prices, we are not convinced that AMD would sell its CPU's for such a low price when they finally have an occasion to catch up to years of economic losses.
Click to expand...

That's the last paragraph only though. Also, "devrait permettre" in the first sentence translates to "should allow", rather than "allows", which makes sense given the context of this preview. The "violent market backlash" on the other hand is probably where I had the most difficulty with, I just translated it with "setback" because the rest of the sentence makes it clearer, but I guess we end up in the same place overall.


----------



## SuperZan

You're both pretty!









Seriously though, thank you to both of you for the translations.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Your argument is something that a minuscule number of people (Us) are impacted by.


Even when OCing was ruled out, I generally put i5s in budget gaming builds because it was necessary to have more lightly threaded performance than an FX could provide in a ~$900 dollar system budget when I was spending 500 of that on video card.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> The processors are cheaper, the motherboards were cheaper, and they performed to a point that you wouldn't know what was what in a blind test.


You could get more aggregate CPU performance per dollar on an FX CPU, sure. However, when it was even possible to do so, getting more lightly-threaded performance cost at least as much.

I had no issues using sub-60 dollar motherboards for mainstream Intel processors, because even the cheapest VRM made was overkill for any near-stock 1155/1150/1151 CPU. Pairing a 60 dollar board with an eight-core FX is asking for trouble. I could swing it with a hex core, but I couldn't OC the hex core on that board to match an i5 in lightly threaded tasks.

Plenty of games ran noticeably better on say an i5-3570, or even an i3, than an FX-8350 when paired with a high-end GPU for the time (something like a GTX 780).

Only with more games, and more prominent games, becoming well threaded has this trend really begun to change...and there are still more games that will run poorly on eight weak cores than four strong ones.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> you have a system with a CPU that pushes 62 fps to the left and one that pushes 47 fps to the right. In a blind test they feel the same.


I get what you're saying in your post, but 47 vs. 62 is a huge and blatantly obvious difference. You don't increase your frame rate by ~30% and not notice it unless you aren't paying attention or are already getting absurdly high frame rates.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> During gaming i don't see why the 6900k's cores wouldn't be running at 3.7+ (in some reviews I remember seeing cores hit 4.0). Vs the gimped 8 core Ryzen @ ~3.3, lets also not forget the 6900k costs $1100+.


Going to depend on the game and the system setup.

If you have the Turbo Boost 3.0 driver installed, the 6900K can push it's best core to 4GHz. X3 and ARMA were probably at 3.7GHz+ the entire time, but the better threaded games like BF4 would likely have been around 3.4-3.5GHz.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> You're both pretty!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, thank you to both of you for the translations.












You know, ahem... OCN isn't only about Mhz bragging, it's also overclock-my-French._n'est-ce pas_?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I get what you're saying in your post, but 47 vs. 62 is a huge and blatantly obvious difference. You don't increase your frame rate by ~30% and not notice it unless you aren't paying attention or are already getting absurdly high frame rates.


That part didn't _translate_ very well into writing, I was being half playful there in order to reduce his argument to the absurd; I even changed the fps from 60 - 45 to 62 - 47 to align with one of the Anand benchmarks (the same article I linked to when talking about power consumption).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8



Some of the other gaming benchmarks have an even larger percentage gap (with the 2600K being more than 50% faster) despite the fps numbers being higher for both, but I wanted to highlight a case where the Bulldozer CPU wasn't even able to crack 60 fps in order to make the question even more glaring as to why someone would chose one over the other.


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Very impressive showing for zen. Not a haswell killer but a ivy bridge killer and considering the likely price difference, this is huge for AMD. Hopefully this overclocks but for some reason I have my doubts for clocking.


What ?? According to the chart, its ipc is almost on par with Skylake.

If true, how come this is not a Haswell killer ?


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Read what I said again slowly.


Read my correction, I was referring to Haswell, obviously.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> What ?? According to the chart, its ipc is almost on par with Skylake.
> 
> If true, how come this is not a Haswell killer ?


Haswell and broadwell have nearly the same IPC and this seems more around that range. Maybe a touch less. This is beating ivybridge IPC, but you can't call this has haswell killer no matter what. Killer means faster normally, and significantly so.

Skylake isn't that impressive in normal reviews, but looking back and putting some real DDR4 in it that's 3000mhz plus, you have a 10 gain or so then what you see in the reviews.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Haswell and broadwell have nearly the same IPC and this seems more around that range. Maybe a touch less. This is beating ivybridge IPC, but you can't call this has haswell killer no matter what. Killer means *faster normally, and significantly so.
> *
> Skylake isn't that impressive in normal reviews, but looking back and putting some real DDR4 in it that's 3000mhz plus, you have a 10 gain or so then what you see in the reviews.


Hahahahhahaha, that is just your position on it.

Most would likely argue that anything matching the same performance at a considerably less cost of acquisition is a "Killer". Something consumers of all products have shown time and time again.

Further, even if these are real we are looking at an early engineering sample without proper drivers. So the fact an ES on engineering drivers is matching Intel's highest end is incredible.


----------



## kd5151




----------



## Nickyvida

Assuming this is equal to a 6900k, is an upgrade from a 4700k worth it? Will i see any performance increase?


----------



## motherpuncher

Why are so many of you expecting an 8 core to clock as high as an intel 4 core part?


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Haswell and broadwell have nearly the same IPC and this seems more around that range. Maybe a touch less. This is beating ivybridge IPC, but you can't call this has haswell killer no matter what. Killer means faster normally, and significantly so.
> 
> Skylake isn't that impressive in normal reviews, but looking back and putting some real DDR4 in it that's 3000mhz plus, you have a 10 gain or so then what you see in the reviews.


lol. That's only your definition, for most people, if a product is much more competitive to another product in the same segment. It's a killer.

For example, Jen Hsun Huang called GTX1070 a Titan killer even both have roughly the same performance.

AMD guys also called R9 290X a Titan (Kepler) killer despite having similar performance.

and by your argument, intel never launch killer products since SB's day since their cpu after SB are within 5% different in performance to each other.


----------



## kd5151




----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motherpuncher*
> 
> Why are so many of you expecting an 8 core to clock as high as an intel 4 core part?


because no CPU in todays age that couldnt do anything less than 4GHz.


----------



## Buggsy

I wonder how similar the chip architectures (ryzen vs i7) would look to a chip engineer.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> *you can't call this has haswell killer no matter what.* Killer means faster normally, and significantly so.
> 
> Skylake isn't that impressive in normal reviews, but looking back and putting some real DDR4 in it that's 3000mhz plus, you have a 10 gain or so then what you see in the reviews.


This is a niche workload but Skylake i7-6700k is only about 15% faster than the year 2011 model Bulldozer FX-8150 in 7-Zip, CLOCK FOR CLOCK.
I don't know how many apps RyZen would beat Haswell in but you can't say sentences like this "it can't be a haswell killer no matter what!".
And why do you think putting some real DDR4 in RyZen that's 3000mhz plus won't give out more performance ? or Do you already know how weaker / stronger a RyZen's IMC is ?
If AMD prices it competitively against i7-6700k and provide couple of more cores you shall know that arguments like IPC, performance per core, overclocking, AVX2, DDR4 4.5 GHz all FAIL right at the moment when you realize i7-6700k can't game and stream simultaneously, while on the contrary RyZen has been shown doing those things flawlessly.

I am not saying that RyZen will be faster overall but ivy bridge level IPC and overclocking potential with couple of more cores does look fine deal to me. Because I am literally quite impressed by AMD when they showed the real world scenario where _*MOAR CORES*_ do matter, no matter what







.

One thing I know for sure that RyZen will not win in AVX2 workload in core for core battle with i7s, but I am also ready to be declared wrong if any highly unlikely magic happens anyway.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motherpuncher*
> 
> Why are so many of you expecting an 8 core to clock as high as an intel 4 core part?


Because it's AMD. They are comically inept and prone to constant failure, their parts barely strong enough to warrant use in a graphing calculator; to be successful, they have to crush Intel's best at every price-point with one SKU whilst competing on price with ebay Pentiums.

The above does not represent my personal view of the topic and is obviously exaggerated for comic effect. Nobody panic.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Because it's AMD. They are comically inept and prone to constant failure, their parts barely strong enough to warrant use in a graphing calculator; to be successful, they have to crush Intel's best at every price-point with one SKU whilst competing on price with ebay Pentiums.
> 
> The above does not represent my personal view of the topic and is obviously exaggerated for comic effect. Nobody panic.


Yeah. In a world where Justin Bieber is a successful singer and Donal trump,the president of united states of America, what else can u expect?


----------



## flippin_waffles

Like that nvidia engineer told the AMD architect at HotChips, "pretty impressive". It is amazing really lol. AMD appears to have done in one generation what it took intel 6(?) to do. With a fraction of revenue and R&D! Thats the kind of engineering effort i will glady support with my wallet. People were debating if Zen would be able to compete with SB or IB not long ago and now its looking like it is competing much higher than that, even at the very top. These results arent even the best Ryzen can do, as clocks go up and more of the SenseMI technology is enabled. (IMO).
This post by Fottemberg suggests there is more performance to come.

https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=278386&postcount=4740
"The real game-changer will be the advanced Turbo feature. "

It is looking quite likely that AMD has a real hit on their hands. Just the fact that we are talking about Ryzen and Broadwell/Skylake/Kabylake in the same breath is something noone was expecting.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyElf*
> 
> Even more so when you consider the shoestring R&D budget that *Intel* had compared to Intel.


I think you mean AMD.


----------



## Randomdude

I think Ryzen will be awful.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Randomdude*
> 
> I think Ryzen will be awful.


How come ? Because of OC? or Dual channel ? this chart shows everything.results are impressive.Remember this is best part that AMD ( $6 B ) can offer vs Intel ( $120 B)


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> you can't call this has haswell killer no matter what. Killer means faster normally, and significantly so.


You want killer performance from AMD ? Faster and Significant, huh !?
Here it is! You can bet on this.








Octa Core Haswell-E Core i7 5960X at 5.0 GHz will be beaten by a Stock Quad Core AMD Zen APU in H.265 hardware accelerated video encoding.

It has been done already in 2014 by an APU in H.264 and this time it is going to be H.265, No matter what.


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> lol. That's only your definition, for most people, if a product is much more competitive to another product in the same segment. It's a killer.
> 
> For example, Jen Hsun Huang called GTX1070 a Titan killer even both have roughly the same performance.


You're leaving out a very important factor. Being competitive to another does NOT make it a "killer" by anyone's definition.

Being competitive in performance AT HALF THE PRICE makes it a "killer".

The GTX 1070 isn't a Titan Killer because they have roughly the same performance, it's a Titan Killer because it has roughly the same performance AT HALF THE PRICE. If they were exactly the same price then they would just be similar products.


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> You're leaving out a very important factor. Being competitive to another does NOT make it a "killer" by anyone's definition.
> 
> Being competitive in performance AT HALF THE PRICE makes it a "killer".
> 
> The GTX 1070 isn't a Titan Killer because they have roughly the same performance, it's a Titan Killer because it has roughly the same performance AT HALF THE PRICE. If they were exactly the same price then they would just be similar products.


agree. you're right.

i forgot that point.


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> You want killer performance from AMD ? Faster and Significant, huh !?
> Here it is! You can bet on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Octa Core Haswell-E Core i7 5960X at 5.0 GHz will be beaten by a Stock Quad Core AMD Zen APU in H.265 hardware accelerated video encoding.
> 
> It has been done already in 2014 by an APU in H.264 and this time it is going to be H.265, No matter what.


And what difference does that make to me? I don't do video encoding. I do however do a lot of gaming. Can it beat an i7 6700k or 7700k in gaming?


----------



## luisxd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> And what difference does that make to me? I don't do video encoding. I do however do a lot of gaming. Can it beat an i7 6700k or 7700k in gaming?


Doesn't matter if it beats them, in that case you just say it doesn't a beat a [insert a better cpu than 6700/7700] so it's crap. And if it does you'll just compare it with a better cpu and so


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> And what difference does that make to me? I don't do video encoding. I do however do a lot of gaming. Can it beat an i7 6700k or 7700k in gaming?


Then may be you are not the right customer for Zen APU, simple. Just don't buy that.

And i7 6700k is already dead for simultaneous streaming and gaming.
If AMD can somehow offload streaming or recording to iGPU cores, that day is not far when an APU would actually beat that 6700/7700 in multitasking.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> And what difference does that make to me? I don't do video encoding. I do however do a lot of gaming. Can it beat an i7 6700k or 7700k in gaming?


And same can be said by another customer who don't game at all and all he/she does is video transcoding.


----------



## buttface420

so it losses to a 4790k at stock by 12% in gaming......better hope that $500 price isnt real. its losing to a 6600k.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> so it losses to a 4790k at stock by 12% in gaming......better hope that $500 price isnt real. its losing to a 6600k.


What are you smoking ? 6600K running at 3.5~3.9 while Zen running at 3.1~3.5.*Get over it*!

hell FX-8350 running at 4.0~4.2 = 73.6% , 6600K = 100% , Zen = 97.3%, It's really good.what if Zen running at 4.0~4.2 ?


----------



## xlink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> so it losses to a 4790k at stock by 12% in gaming......better hope that $500 price isnt real. its losing to a 6600k.


Huge clock speed differential.

If Zen gets anywhere close to 4Ghz it'll be "close enough" for older games and the extra cores will help it in newer titles.

As someone who does data mining and machine learning, cores are starting to matter more and more to me. 3570k @4.5 Ghz to Zen @ 4Ghz would more than double my compute power with no real cut to gaming at all.

ALso to say that Zen sucks because it loses in lightly threaded tasks is missing the big picture. The 6950X CPU loses to the 6600k in games as well.


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Please keep in mind they threwARMA in there for gaming benchmarks...
> 
> The fact that it's still averaging above a skylake i5 with Arma in the mix and the other games listed aside from BF1 not being decently threaded I'd say it's in a pretty good spot - especially if it's clocked lower than what we can expect..
> 
> *Regardless - as always there will be fake benches out there so take this with a huge pile of salt and wait for official benchmarks*


Salt is bad for you. Use Mrs Dash instead. GREAT on eggs!

Its also an engineering sample and not main production if the clock is 3.1 and its reporting a boost state since production Ryzen use TDP clock limiting so it probably wasn't getting anywhere near max AND iirc its all four cores that push up at the same time on each cluster. (haven't been able to confirm but it jives with the architecture) A boost state that stops at a big number like .5 and .6 just wouldn't jive with what we were told about the 25MHz jumps so there's either rounding in the charts (bad for a benchmark) or the chip works differently from Ryzen and is just an Engineering Sample Zen used for development of AM4 boards.

Roomars Roomars!


----------



## renx

Lisa said 3.4 base clock, so this looks like some old ES.
Also the whole platform is being fine tuned as we discuss this.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> That's the last paragraph only though. Also, "devrait permettre" in the first sentence translates to "should allow", rather than "allows", which makes sense given the context of this preview. The "violent market backlash" on the other hand is probably where I had the most difficulty with, I just translated it with "setback" because the rest of the sentence makes it clearer, but I guess we end up in the same place overall.


Your translation is more appropriate, it's "sould allow" and setback is on point too.
Well translated Sir ! Un grand Bravo !

The results are promising.
Since a long time, AMD can compete again with Intel metrics and that's a really good news.
But some concerns remain :

- Clocks, AMD need better clocks to face desktop KBL and bring more competition. Overclocking capabilities are yet to see and KBL seems to clock quite well.
- Availability, test was done end november (A0 chip) and, according to Doc TB, a January launch seems not possible, a mass availability in march is mentionned as ambitious too.
- Prices, a really strategic factor, I just hope that AMD will play the game agressively, but not so much, in order to profit from more margins, they absolutely need it.


----------



## buttface420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> What are you smoking ? 6600K running at 3.5~3.9 while Zen running at 3.1~3.5.*Get over it*!
> hell FX-8350 running at 4.0~4.2 = 73.6% , 6600K = 100% , Zen = 97.3%, It's really good.what if Zen running at 4.0~4.2 ?


its really not good. they're claiming a price of $500 for zen and if it losses to a i5 6600 non k at stock i don't care what it can clock too it still loses to a 4790k all day. you're up they're asking what im smoking while you're blabbing about clockspeeds which means absolutely nothing. who cares if zen is at 4-4.2 ghz the 4790k overclocks too and still beats it.

the 8350 oc'd to 5 ghz and still lost to a stock i5 2400 at 3.1 ghz in gaming. i dont know what you want me "to get over" , it cost 500 bucks and losses to a cpu that cost $179 in gaming idc what the clockspeeds are,how many cores or threads it has.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> so it losses to a 4790k at stock by 12% in gaming......better hope that $500 price isnt real. its losing to a 6600k.


I have nightmares about people like you - the type of consumer that just looks at the numbers and nothing else. Someone who, somehow, manages to extract the numbers completely from their context and then comes to the conclusion a product is bad because of this foolish act. Read what everyone is telling you and just stop.


----------



## bloot

The ES chip that magazine had access to isn't the retail one, the retail one base clock will be 3.4GHz or higher as Lisa Su said in the New Horizon event with a still unknown boost clock. So these numbers looks pretty good to me, if you extrapolate them to a final retail chip, it will be really close to the 6900K.

Just wait for the offical reviews (not previews) that are about to come.

Greetings.


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> its really not good. they're claiming a price of $500 for zen and if it losses to a i5 6600 non k at stock i don't care what it can clock too it still loses to a 4790k all day. you're up they're asking what im smoking while you're blabbing about clockspeeds which means absolutely nothing. who cares if zen is at 4-4.2 ghz the 4790k overclocks too and still beats it.
> 
> the 8350 oc'd to 5 ghz and still lost to a stock i5 2400 at 3.1 ghz in gaming. i dont know what you want me "to get over" , it cost 500 bucks and losses to a cpu that cost $179 in gaming idc what the clockspeeds are,how many cores or threads it has.


No one is claiming $500 price but speculation on the internet. Your point is invalid.


----------



## buttface420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> No one is claiming $500 price but speculation on the internet. Your point is invalid.


cool. it only means my point of price is invalid..all my other points are still very valid. it losses to a stock i5 6600 non k in gaming no matter what its price is.


----------



## DNMock

I think I'll wait and see how Intel responds with Skylake E pricing before I pull the trigger on an SR7. If they pull the same garbage they did with Broadwell E and it's 1700 dollar 10-core CPU, I may well jump ship and sail away with the red team provided they can keep competitive on all the other aspects like Ram clocks, PCIE lanes NVME slots etc. etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> cool. it only means my point of price is invalid..all my other points are still very valid. it losses to a stock i5 6600 non k in gaming no matter what its price is.


8 core engineering sample vs 4 core released sample is hardly a fair comparison in single threaded gaming performance.

Wouldn't be surprised even slightly if the 4 core version of Zen completely throttles the i5 6600 in price/performance

All signs seem to be pointing to what rumors were flying around earlier. SR7 = 5960X.


----------



## buttface420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> I think I'll wait and see how Intel responds with Skylake E pricing before I pull the trigger on an SR7. If they pull the same garbage they did with Broadwell E and it's 1700 dollar 10-core CPU, I may well jump ship and sail away with the red team provided they can keep competitive on all the other aspects like Ram clocks, PCIE lanes NVME slots etc. etc.
> 8 core engineering sample vs 4 core released sample is hardly a fair comparison in single threaded gaming performance.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised even slightly if the 4 core version of Zen completely throttles the i5 6600 in price/performance
> 
> All signs seem to be pointing to what rumors were flying around earlier. SR7 = 5960X.


thats if ANY of these rumors are even true. i hope it is like a 5960x but we dont know yet. every other day theres new "benchmarks" and all of them say something different. based off this one, i stated my opinion that if this is $500 and these gaming benches were real its not worth it to me...obviously a cpu that performs like a 5960x for $500 would be worth it to people who care for cpus like that. everyone is jumping at me because of my opinion, saying i give them nightmares and blah blah blah...is just ridiculous to me because we dont even know what it is yet lmao people are getting all worked up and arguing over "what if" benchmarks that "might" be real


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> thats if ANY of these rumors are even true. i hope it is like a 5960x but we dont know yet. every other day theres new "benchmarks" and all of them say something different. based off this one, i stated my opinion that if this is $500 and these gaming benches were real its not worth it to me...obviously a cpu that performs like a 5960x for $500 would be worth it to people who care for cpus like that. everyone is jumping at me because of my opinion, saying i give them nightmares and blah blah blah...is just ridiculous to me because we dont even know what it is yet lmao people are getting all worked up and arguing over "what if" benchmarks that "might" be real


you got flamed because your argument made no sense.

this isn't a cpu for kids that only use their PCs for gaming purpose. this 8 core cpu is for enthusiasms who want more processing power from their rigs and it did pretty well in that benchmark.

there will be a 4/6 core Zen cpu with higher clock for gaming PC anyway.


----------



## IRobot23

Did review mentioned temperature of RYZEN ES under load?


----------



## buttface420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> you got flamed because your argument made no sense.
> 
> this isn't a cpu for kids that only use their PCs for gaming purpose. this 8 core cpu is for enthusiasms who want more processing power from their rigs and it did pretty well in that benchmarks.
> 
> there will be a 4/6 core Zen cpu with higher clock for gaming PC anyway.


yawn. my arguement was that it losses to a locked i5 in gaming according to this maybe fake bench review and isnt worth it imo. you say that makes no sense but i dont really care. yes i know this cpu isnt for people for gaming i literally just posted that. dont know why that upsets you so much...maybe take a chill pill breh?


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> thats if ANY of these rumors are even true. i hope it is like a 5960x but we dont know yet. every other day theres new "benchmarks" and all of them say something different. based off this one, i stated my opinion that if this is $500 and these gaming benches were real its not worth it to me...obviously a cpu that performs like a 5960x for $500 would be worth it to people who care for cpus like that. everyone is jumping at me because of my opinion, saying i give them nightmares and blah blah blah...is just ridiculous to me because we dont even know what it is yet lmao people are getting all worked up and arguing over "what if" benchmarks that "might" be real


I'm not flaming you in the least. Simply saying the 8 core chip, especially an engineering sample, isn't a good comparison to base decisions on for a system design purely for gaming. The 4 and 6 core versions are what you want to be looking for to compare for that.

Also we still don't know what kind of RAM clock speeds we can expect to achieve and pcie lanes available etc. etc. which will all be important factors to consider as well.


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> yawn. my arguement was that it losses to a locked i5 in gaming according to this maybe fake bench review and isnt worth it imo. you say that makes no sense but i dont really care. yes i know this cpu isnt for people for gaming i literally just posted that. dont know why that upsets you so much...maybe take a chill pill breh?


what's your opinion about i7 6900K ? since it costs $1000 and also loses against an outdated i7 4790K.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> what's your opinion about i7 6900K ? since it costs $1000 and also loses against an outdated i7 4790K.


Probably the exact same since he has stated several times, he is looking at it from a purely gaming performance point of view.

P.S. Devils Canyon isn't what I would consider outdated considering it runs within about 5% of skylake and kaby lake.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Excellent results.
The chip beats FX 8370 by over 40% despite running 700MHz lower! Thats just amazing!

One thing though: I hope AMD release 6 and 4 core CPUs as well since these will have room to run higher than the 8-core tested her.
That should give Intel some serious competition even against Kaby lake


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Did review mentioned temperature of RYZEN ES under load?


No.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Excellent results.
> The chip beats FX 8370 by over 40% despite running 700MHz lower! Thats just amazing!
> 
> One thing though: I hope AMD release 6 and 4 core CPUs as well since these will have room to run higher than the 8-core tested her.
> That should give Intel some serious competition even against Kaby lake


They need to have all sku ready and released at the same time.


----------



## Raghar

They would release 8 core first, and then when they would have enough salvaged 6-cores they would release 6-core version.


----------



## Ding Chavez

The gaming benches, if true, are about what I expected. Not bad at all IMO.

A decent improvement over the 8370. But I didn't expect better than 4790K or 6700K for gaming, that is really a big ask.

The 6 core might be the one to go for which will be good value IMO.


----------



## hokk

People saying huge grain of salt

that isn't how it works you know right?


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> People saying huge grain of salt
> 
> that isn't how it works you know right?


I've read about several probable origins of the idiom. I've come to the conclusion that it can be open to interpretation, even considering the etymology of "salt" itself.

As such, it's really better that we stop talking about it in every single thread lest it becomes a meme on this OCN sub-forum.


----------



## Marios145

I'm pretty sure i entered overclock.net and not imatstock.net, this thing matches broadwell/skylake in IPC (instructions per clock for those unaware), if it can clock at 4.2 or higher on air/water as rumours suggested and costs less than 500, i'll be getting 2.
Go on, buy your locked i5s.


----------



## DarkRadeon7000

Just to get some advice from people,I am upgrading from a FX 8350 for a new build and was going to get the 6700k.I use my PC mainly for gaming.Looking at these benches should I just get 6700k or wait for the rival Ryzen SKU?


----------



## Ding Chavez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkRadeon7000*
> 
> Just to get some advice from people,I am upgrading from a FX 8350 for a new build and was going to get the 6700k.I use my PC mainly for gaming.Looking at these benches should I just get 6700k or wait for the rival Ryzen SKU?


Wait for zen release and reviews, I wouldn't base anything on these articles but idle conversation/speculation...


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Just Stop it right now.Wait for 4c/8T then come here.AMD didn't say it will direct compete to Core i7-6700K.Rival is 6900K , not 6700K.For gaming AMD will launch new CPU with 4C/8T.Just wait.


Why should I stop?
People are comparing the Ryazan to the 6700k, so I just reponded.
People here have been buying a 6900k and 6950x for gaming. So now claiming that the Ryazan is not for gaming but comparing it for gaming... please.
Also reported 4/8 CPUs will not be just higher clocked Ryazan with 4/8 setup. It will be a completely different CPU with different cache, and it will not be 1:1 clock to clock as people sudgest with zero info to back it up.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> All signs seem to be pointing to what rumors were flying around earlier. SR7 = 5960X.


5960X was 22 nm. Put excellent cooling on it, and it will overclock well. On 14 nm put decent cooling, and if manufacturer set speed too close to limits, it will overclock like a dog. We seen this on HBM overclocking. The problem is with 14 nm manufacturer can set speed close to limits.

Wonder what it will do to prices of SKY-X.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Remember that the Zen CPU tested here was an ES with a turbo boost of 3.3Ghz.
AMD have stated that Zen will have 3.4GHz +.

Which to me means that the highest core chips will have 3.4GHz while lower core chips will be substantial higher than the 3.4GHz tested here.
Wouldnt surprise me that 16-core will do 3.4 Ghz, 8-core tested here will do 3.6GHz which means it should do a lot better than the test here....

AMD might have a winner


----------



## Marios145

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Why should I stop?
> People are comparing the Ryazan to the 6700k, so I just reponded.
> People here have been buying a 6900k and 6950x for gaming. So now claiming that the Ryazan is not for gaming but comparing it for gaming... please.
> Also reported 4/8 CPUs will not be just higher clocked Ryazan with 4/8 setup. It will be a completely different CPU with different cache, and it will not be 1:1 clock to clock as people sudgest with zero info to back it up.


Due to zen's characteristics, 2x4cores = one 8core, so a 4c/8t at same clocks with half l3 cache, will probably consume <50W.
These extra 40W are more than enough to clock it at 4GHz+
Since games don't scale beyond 4cores, would you agree that 4GHz will be enough to bring the difference to 1-2 fps, maybe overtake it?who knows.


----------



## kd5151




----------



## Torvi

having i7-6700k i can see the purpose for upgrading but deciding not to as the gains will be too small


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Remember that the Zen CPU tested here was an ES with a turbo boost of 3.3Ghz.
> AMD have stated that Zen will have 3.4GHz +.
> 
> Which to me means that the highest core chips will have 3.4GHz while lower core chips will be substantial higher than the 3.4GHz tested here.
> Wouldnt surprise me that 16-core will do 3.4 Ghz, 8-core tested here will do 3.6GHz which means it should do a lot better than the test here....
> 
> AMD might have a winner


Only if price is reasonable.


----------



## Blameless

People make too much fuss over engineering samples. Engineering samples, except for final clock speeds, are almost always representative this close to launch. The CPUs they will be selling have already been made, firmware is done or nearly so, and CPUs don't need drivers. OSes will also handle the CPU topology fine because it's not a new topology (Bulldozer was, because CMT was new, but SMT is comparitively ancient).

If this was a super early ES it wouldn't be reaching these clocks and probably wouldn't have left AMD. If this is an ES, it's a late sample and should be reflective of final IPC. The benchmarks certainly hint at a release quality part.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Like that nvidia engineer told the AMD architect at HotChips, "pretty impressive". It is amazing really lol. AMD appears to have done in one generation what it took intel 6(?) to do. With a fraction of revenue and R&D!


Both companies have manged similar feats in the past. AMD went from selling Intel clones to outdoing Intel's best in the last three years of the 1990s. Later, Intel themselves dropped Netburst in favor of a retuned mobile architecture that was itself based off years old P6...and doubled their mainstream IPC overnight.

Amazing, sure, but not unprecedented for either side.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> It is looking quite likely that AMD has a real hit on their hands. Just the fact that we are talking about Ryzen and Broadwell/Skylake/Kabylake in the same breath is something noone was expecting.


Who is no one?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Octa Core Haswell-E Core i7 5960X at 5.0 GHz will be beaten by a Stock Quad Core AMD Zen APU in H.265 hardware accelerated video encoding.


If OpenCL encoding was worthwhile for what I normally encode for I'd just use a GPU. However, the pure software encoders still have enough of an edge in quality vs. bitrate that hardware encoding hasn't been viable for either archival or streaming, yet. This is the main reason it's been six years since I had a quad core part in a primary system of mine.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> These extra 40W are more than enough to clock it at 4GHz+


Maybe.

How well clocks scale on Zen is the one point where we have essentially zero information on. Everything else has at least credible rumor or well-educated speculation, but this is a void.


----------



## Raghar

Actually I wonder one thing. Were they able to overclock engineering sample, by multiplier or BCLK?


----------



## ebduncan

22 pages ?

typical I hope ZEN does well thread.

Just wait for a the actual reviews. I can tell you though ZEN is definitely a step in the right direction for AMD. Now the real geeks such as the ones at OCN need to get their grubby paws on ZEN and see what it will really do. Hopefully at 4.5ghz+


----------



## TokenBC

I think this sample may be A1 stepping, judging by the clocks. There probably were several more after this one.

It doesn't matter all that much, though. The author of the article told us what exactly it boosted to, and we already know the retail version will clock higher than this as Lisa Su said so herself.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> No.


I guess he could make more tests (AIDA...).
Anyway this looks great.

All we need now is SIX core unlocked under or 300$.


----------



## black96ws6

These numbers are legitimate, they are not fake.

Canard PC Hardware has already said so in their Twitter (https://twitter.com/CPCHardware), AND,

You can now read the preview of the actual article online on their site. The magazine with the article may already be in news stands in Paris:

http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque/

THAT BEING SAID, it IS a prototype, rough translation:
Quote:


> We were able to test for the occasion on an AM4 platform and a Bristol Ridge A12 processor but also - most importantly - a *prototype* 8-core Ryzen CPU based on Zen architecture. After a global preview on this new generation processor and their architecture (with probably some details not yet officially unveiled), we will carry out a battery of tests, both on massively multithreaded rendering applications and on some video games. We shall end with a point on the electrical consumption of the first samples. Note that the results obtained on this prototype can only be considered as an overview of the capabilities of the Zen architecture: *the final frequencies will still evolve from here to the commercial launch.*


----------



## incog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Remember that the Zen CPU tested here was an ES with a turbo boost of 3.3Ghz.
> 
> AMD have stated that Zen will have 3.4GHz +.
> 
> Which to me means that the highest core chips will have 3.4GHz while lower core chips will be substantial higher than the 3.4GHz tested here.
> 
> Wouldnt surprise me that 16-core will do 3.4 Ghz, 8-core tested here will do 3.6GHz which means it should do a lot better than the test here....
> 
> AMD might have a winner
> 
> 
> 
> Only if price is reasonable.
Click to expand...

You can say what you want about AMD, but they generally priced their products very nicely.

The R9 290 when it came out was one of the best things to happen to the GPU market. I remember buying my 7970 for €300 when the GTX 770 was at around €400. Nvidia cards are nice for sure, but I could never justify buying them because AMD's priceerformance was just *there*.

Even Bulldozer CPUs were fair enough deals back in the day, today much less so for obvious reasons, but still.


----------



## iLeakStuff

The fact that this Zen prototype is within 10% of the 8-core i7-6900K that cost $1100 means that AMD not only have leapfrogged Intel but have a HUGE price range they can charge and selling these 8-core Zen chips like hotcakes.

Even at $800 it will be successful.


----------



## kingduqc

I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.

Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same time and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same time and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.


actually i7 6700K might have and will have problem with latest games for 144-120Hz monitors.
Check up BF1, Watchdogs,...


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> *I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900* when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same time and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.


Simply because of core count.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same time and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.


You dont seem to understand marketing.

If a consuner can get a 8 or 6-core Zen for the same price as a 4-core Intel CPU, then chances are pretty big that the consumer will get the Zen CPU.
AMD tried this with Bulldozer but that didnt work very well because the performance was far from Intel.

But now, with IPC so close to Intel, AMD will have zero trouble selling these chips.
And rightfully so, because who wouldnt want more cores for cheaper. And with lower TDP.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> You dont seem to understand marketing.
> 
> If a consuner can get a 8 or 6-core Zen for the same price as a 4-core Intel CPU, then chances are pretty big that the consumer will get the Zen CPU.
> AMD tried this with Bulldozer but that didnt work very well because the performance was far from Intel.
> 
> But now, with IPC so close to Intel, AMD will have zero trouble selling these chips.
> And rightfully so, because who wouldnt want more cores for cheaper. And with lower TDP.


I hope that RYZEN 6C/12T will be priced at 300$ or lower. I expect same or lower than i7 6700K which offers you iGPU, wouldnt be surprised, if it will be just above i7 6700K around 350$ price range.


----------



## kingduqc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> Simply because of core count.


People buy off price and performance, not core count. Type of workload come into the equation when you talk about performance but what i'm trying to say is that the workload of the average consumer isn't scaling well with cores and it won't in the next decade. Making software that utilise well many threads is much harder and costly and it's not needed for 90% of the software out there, plain and simple. Encoding, streaming, benchmarks is irreverent for the consumers.

I mainly game, and so does my friends. We'll all look at zen this way: Does AMD offer a better cpu for gaming then Intel at 200-500$? The answer is going to be no. At 500$ you can buy a binned i5-i7 from silicon lottery that does 5.0-5.2Ghz and even in games that scale well with cores AMD won't compete. For the lower end bracket it's the same thing, the intel i5's are going to beat any 4c/8T AMD has. I mean sure, you can come up with a scenario where it's not happening but that's not what we are buying anyway.

*I'm saying this without knowing much of the performance beside this leak.* Of course I could be wrong and AMD has a super scaling cpu in it's hand and it can do with ease 5ghz, but if they got their base clock at 3.4, I don't think we'll see much from them in that regard.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The fact that this Zen prototype is within 10% of the 8-core i7-6900K that cost $1100 means that AMD not only have leapfrogged Intel but have a HUGE price range they can charge and selling these 8-core Zen chips like hotcakes.
> 
> Even at $800 it will be successful.


Or in Europe at $1200 unsuccessful, or at $1000 while being slower by more than 10%, also unsuccessful and follow the past failures of their marketing and greedy distributors.

It will all come down to performance/price ratio no matter how fast the CPUs are, something AMD can't match on the CPU nor GPU front a lot of the time unfortunately. Plus the never ending supply issues of their new releases.
Pricing and distribution, they gotta nail it down, without that it doesn't matter how good the products are if no one can buy them.


----------



## Dragonsyph

HAHAHAHAHA only 35% over fail dozer. /facepalm


----------



## kingduqc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> You dont seem to understand marketing.
> 
> If a consuner can get a 8 or 6-core Zen for the same price as a 4-core Intel CPU, then chances are pretty big that the consumer will get the Zen CPU.
> AMD tried this with Bulldozer but that didnt work very well because the performance was far from Intel.
> 
> But now, with IPC so close to Intel, AMD will have zero trouble selling these chips.
> And rightfully so, because who wouldnt want more cores for cheaper. And with lower TDP.


People buy off price and performance, not core count. Type of workload come into the equation when you talk about performance but what i'm trying to say is that the workload of the average consumer isn't scaling well with cores and it won't in the next decade. Making software that utilise well many threads is much harder and costly and it's not needed for 90% of the software out there, plain and simple. Encoding, streaming, benchmarks is irreverent for the consumers.

I mainly game, and so does my friends. We'll all look at zen this way: Does AMD offer a better cpu for gaming then Intel at 200-500$? The answer is going to be no. At 500$ you can buy a binned i5-i7 from silicon lottery that does 5.0-5.2Ghz and even in games that scale well with cores AMD won't compete. For the lower end bracket it's the same thing, the intel i5's are going to beat any 4c/8T AMD has. I mean sure, you can come up with a scenario where it's not happening but that's not what we are buying anyway.

*I'm saying this without knowing much of the performance beside this leak.* Of course I could be wrong and AMD has a super scaling cpu in it's hand and it can do with ease 5ghz, but if they got their base clock at 3.4, I don't think we'll see much from them in that regard.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> You dont seem to understand marketing.
> 
> If a consuner can get a 8 or 6-core Zen for the same price as a 4-core Intel CPU, then chances are pretty big that the consumer will get the Zen CPU.
> AMD tried this with Bulldozer but that didnt work very well because the performance was far from Intel.
> 
> But now, with IPC so close to Intel, AMD will have zero trouble selling these chips.
> And rightfully so, because who wouldnt want more cores for cheaper. And with lower TDP.


I forgot it has worked so well for them in the past.







Intel has encrusted it's brand in the brain of the average consumer for the last decade. Even if they are exactly the same in every regard Intel is still going to sell much more cpus just because of that fact. Same reason why AMD has been loosing ground on the GPU market, Nvidia has a much stronger brand power. Talk to the typical gamer in a LAN party and ask him about his specs, he'll tell you he has an Nvidia gpu and probably will forget the actual GPU he has in his rig. "An nvidia 700 or something like that."


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Your translation is more appropriate, it's "sould allow" and setback is on point too.
> Well translated Sir ! Un grand Bravo !
> 
> The results are promising.
> Since a long time, AMD can compete again with Intel metrics and that's a really good news.
> But some concerns remain :
> 
> - Clocks, AMD need better clocks to face desktop KBL and bring more competition. Overclocking capabilities are yet to see and KBL seems to clock quite well.
> - Availability, test was done end november (A0 chip) and, according to Doc TB, a January launch seems not possible, a mass availability in march is mentionned as ambitious too.
> - Prices, a really strategic factor, I just hope that AMD will play the game agressively, but not so much, in order to profit from more margins, they absolutely need it.


Thanks!









And I also agree, AMD has a very good chance to play the cards right, the quad core version will have to be clocked higher , but it's probably at the hexacore level that they have the chance to shine and be the first to make them mainstream without making them too cheap; a good value for everyone.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> These numbers are legitimate, they are not fake.
> 
> Canard PC Hardware has already said so in their Twitter (https://twitter.com/CPCHardware), AND,
> 
> You can now read the preview of the actual article online on their site. The magazine with the article may already be in news stands in Paris:
> 
> http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque/
> 
> THAT BEING SAID, it IS a prototype, rough translation:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> We were able to test for the occasion on an AM4 platform and a Bristol Ridge A12 processor but also - most importantly - a *prototype* 8-core Ryzen CPU based on Zen architecture. After a global preview on this new generation processor and their architecture (with probably some details not yet officially unveiled), we will carry out a battery of tests, both on massively multithreaded rendering applications and on some video games. We shall end with a point on the electrical consumption of the first samples. Note that the results obtained on this prototype can only be considered as an overview of the capabilities of the Zen architecture: *the final frequencies will still evolve from here to the commercial launch.*
Click to expand...

Well, said, and thanks for the translation! Rep+

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same time and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.


It was back in 2011, and especially the way AMD did it. But now it's a different conversation. They seem to have recovered from the IPC problem they had, they will now also have strong cores with virtual threads on the side to extract performance when needed in highly threaded applications; the manufacturing process is perfectly adequate to make quadcores + HT and hexacores mainstream and software, while still needing strong cores for the main program threads, is now much more multi-threaded than it was 6 years ago. And with DX 12 not really scaling with more than 6 cores, this is about the time to get a CPU for the foreseeable future. 4 Core with HT will become the de-facto standard next year, I have very high doubts that Intel will be able to sell the 7700K at anything above $250 and hexacores will be the CPU to get to future-proof at the mainstream level, just like the 2600K was back in 2011. The 8 core will be for the enthusiast who wants to multitask without delays.

AMD has an advantage in that it is going with dual channel memory, which in practice shows little to no difference to Intel's quad channel arrangement for consumer desktop workloads, thus it can save on socket size, transistor size, power envelope and motherboard design complexity. They are doing it at the right moment. I still have some doubts about their rumoured PCIe arrangement (how many lanes are on die, especially when it comes to platform longevity, which Lisa Su said it would have), but they are just rumours, so let's wait and see.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same time and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.
> 
> 
> 
> actually i7 6700K might have and will have problem with latest games for 144-120Hz monitors.
> Check up BF1, Watchdogs,...
Click to expand...

2017 will be the year when 4C/8T thread will have to occupy the 4C/4T pricing segment, the pricing will have to be readjusted one slot down at least. It will be interesting to see how much that i3 with unlocked multiplier will sell for. I don't believe for a moment that Intel will be able to sell it at the rumoured $170+. ~ $180 is what I would pay for the _i5-7600K_ in 2017.


----------



## IRobot23

Or 130$ for i5 7650K (no IGPU)! That would be awesome...


----------



## Raghar

Or we could see massive drop in CPU quality and durability in 5 years as a result of price war between AMD and Intel, and would grouply return to i7-7700K from ages when CPU were fast and durable and could last even 15 years fully used.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Or 130$ for i5 7650K (no IGPU)! That would be awesome...


That's a bit too much wishful thinking, I'd say that's probably the top dollar I'd pay for the unlocked i3.

As a side note, when Intel disables the GPU they charge more lol. The 2550K cost more than the 2500K. It did come higher clocked, 100 Mhz higher on base and Turbo, but it was also released a year later, early 2012, it just went to show that they knew that people buying the 2500K were valuing the CPU cores and had very little use for the GPU cores. Then again, that initial motherboard line-up, where P67 didn't have graphics output and H67 couldn't overclock didn't help (Z68 later solved that).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Or we could see massive drop in CPU quality and durability in 5 years as a result of price war between AMD and Intel, and would grouply return to i7-7700K from ages when CPU were fast and durable and could last even 15 years fully used.


ARM CPUs are very cheap and I don't... well, then again, people toss out their phones faster than that, so we can't tell. Anyway, you mean how Intel is still using thermal paste on $300+ CPUs? They didn't need AMD's competition for that.


----------



## LuckyDuck69

AMD's new flagship is only able to compete with Intel's little chips?


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> AMD's new flagship is only able to compete with Intel's little chips?


Sarcasm or?


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> AMD's new flagship is only able to compete with Intel's little chips?


For the nth time, it's an engineering sample clocked at 3.15 Ghz base. Lisa Su already presented one that will be running _at least_ at 3.4 Ghz base on the same 95w TDP.


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> For the nth time, it's an engineering sample clocked at 3.15 Ghz base. Lisa Su already presented one that will be running _at least_ at 3.4 Ghz base on the same 95w TDP.


Come on, we both know that the difference between is 3.15 and 3.4 is negligible in the big picture. It won't make up for poor chip design / architecture.

AMD needs to find one market and go all in for that market. Clearly, desktop computing is not it. Which really sucks, btw, because at this rate the new Intel Skylake-X chips will probably top out around $2000. No competition allows for creativity in pricing.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> For the nth time, it's an engineering sample clocked at 3.15 Ghz base. Lisa Su already presented one that will be running _at least_ at 3.4 Ghz base on the same 95w TDP.
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, we both know that the difference between is 3.15 and 3.4 is negligible in the big picture. It won't make up for poor chip design / architecture.
> 
> AMD needs to find one market and go all in for that market. Clearly, desktop computing is not it. Which really sucks, btw, because at this rate the new Intel Skylake-X chips will probably top out around $2000. No competition allows for creativity in pricing.
Click to expand...

On an 8 core CPU with 16 threads it isn't. Then again, if we are to compare against "Intel's little chips" then let's do it when they release the 4 and 6 core versions. Those will absolutely have to come clocked higher if they want to compete. If they don't, then I'll fully agree, they missed the train. But for now things are looking good.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

The stupidity and fanboyism in this thread is to another level for OCN. No wonder Intel has been able to walk away with the market.

It is clear a significant number of people really don't know what they are looking at or talking about, and are running off Intel emotions. Why? Intel owes you nothing...


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> On an 8 core CPU with 16 threads it isn't. Then again, if we are to compare against "Intel's little chips" then let's do it when they release the 4 and 6 core versions. Those will absolutely have to come clocked higher if they want to compete. If they don't, then I'll fully agree, they missed the train. But for now things are looking good.


So an 8 core chip with AMD's version of "threading".. clocked at 3.15 GHz can't hang with the current Intel i7-6700k...

Err.. nevermind. Went back and looked at the original resolution of the photo in the OP. That's actually 6900k.. not 6700k.

So with that in mind, I stand corrected.









This might actually get exciting. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result. I'll never buy an AMD product again.. but I'm still excited nevertheless.


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> The stupidity and fanboyism in this thread is to another level for OCN. No wonder Intel has been able to walk away with the market.
> 
> It is clear a significant number of people really don't know what they are looking at or talking about, and are running off Intel emotions. Why? Intel owes you nothing...


Agreed. But for me and so many others.. we like to have the best. And historically that has been Intel. Intel has always been ahead of AMD in the chip game. For awhile, ATi was getting an edge in the graphics market but then AMD bought them out and.. well we all see how that went.

On a side note, are you in Hawaii as well?


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> So an 8 core chip with AMD's version of "threading".. clocked at 3.15 GHz can't hang with the current Intel i7-6700k...
> 
> Err.. nevermind. Went back and looked at the original resolution of the photo in the OP. That's actually 6900k.. not 6700k.
> 
> So with that in mind, I stand corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might actually get exciting. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result. I'll never buy an AMD product again.. but I'm still excited nevertheless.


You must be trolling..Please...

Why you cant understand you and the half ocn that an 8core/16 threads cpu is not optimal for gaming?

Not even 6900k does that well on gaming vs the high clocked 6700k.


----------



## warpuck

Forbes just wrote an article about Intel/AMD. Basically stated the new Zen may cause intel to release a i3K and the the 8 core Zen will match a 6700/7700 clock for clock in performance. It is still in the believe it when I see it locker as far as I am concerned. Meanwhile my credit card balance is approaching zero.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2016/12/24/intel-and-amd-to-go-head-to-head-in-2017-stunning-new-enthusiast-processors-coming/#58bc445c2eb3


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> On an 8 core CPU with 16 threads it isn't. Then again, if we are to compare against "Intel's little chips" then let's do it when they release the 4 and 6 core versions. Those will absolutely have to come clocked higher if they want to compete. If they don't, then I'll fully agree, they missed the train. But for now things are looking good.
> 
> 
> 
> So an 8 core chip with AMD's version of "threading".. clocked at 3.15 GHz can't hang with the current Intel i7-6700k...
> 
> Err.. nevermind. Went back and looked at the original resolution of the photo in the OP. That's actually 6900k.. not 6700k.
> 
> So with that in mind, I stand corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might actually get exciting. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result. I'll never buy an AMD product again.. but I'm still excited nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Glad we sorted that out. Yeah, AMD has been pitching the Ryzen 8 core chip against the 6900K; that picture is quite low quality, that's for sure, I wonder if more people are misreading it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> The stupidity and fanboyism in this thread is to another level for OCN. No wonder Intel has been able to walk away with the market.
> 
> It is clear a significant number of people really don't know what they are looking at or talking about, and are running off Intel emotions. Why? Intel owes you nothing...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But for me and so many others.. we like to have the best. And historically that has been Intel. Intel has always been ahead of AMD in the chip game. For awhile, ATi was getting an edge in the graphics market but then AMD bought them out and.. well we all see how that went.
> 
> On a side note, are you in Hawaii as well?
Click to expand...

Not always. In the Pentium 3 days Intel had to keep iterating the design because AMD were doing slightly better. And then again in the Pentium 4 days the Athlon XP was fierce competition and the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 were slam dunks.


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Glad we sorted that out. Yeah, AMD has been pitching the Ryzen 8 core chip against the 6900K; that picture is quite low quality, that's for sure, I wonder if more people are misreading it.
> Not always. In the Pentium 3 days Intel had to keep iterating the design because AMD were doing slightly better. And then again in the Pentium 4 days the Athlon XP was fierce competition and the Athlon 64 was a slam dunk.


Pentium 3 and Athlon XP.. sigh. You just took me way back. #nostalgia


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> You must be trolling..Please...
> 
> Why you cant understand you and the half ocn that an 8core/16 threads cpu is not optimal for gaming?
> 
> Not even 6900k does that well on gaming vs the high clocked 6700k.


Because it is possible to have 9000 cores with threading and still have a bad chip design. This is what me and half of OCN know.


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Because it is possible to have 9000 cores with threading and still have a bad chip design. This is what me and half of OCN know.


How is it a bad design if it's almost on par with 6900K clock for clock ?


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> How is it a bad design if it's almost on par with 6900K clock for clock ?


We won't know for sure until it's released into the wild. Once that happens, every overclocker with some extra money will be roughing it up on their test bench. Then we'll all know for sure.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> I'll never buy an AMD product again.


Wow... How come??


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Wow... How come??


Several reasons. Some basic. Some technical.

Basic reason example: design. I think it is completely moronic to put the pins on the object you will be handling with your hands (the cpu).

Technical reason overview: AMD is consistently just 'good enough' and that is exactly where they want to be. They made a business decision years ago be the affordable pc component company. You can't make the best components and support cutting edge R&D if you're striving to fill the affordable segment of the market. You just can't. I'm a snob when it comes to my components... I want the best I can get for what my build is meant to do.


----------



## Tobiman

The market for the 8 core Ryzen chip is for people like myself that want to dable in some video recording and editing while multitasking without a hitch. Have you tried recording gameplay with X264 while gaming? It's next to impossible in some of the games I play with anything less than an 8 core intel chip. If Zen makes this possible while forking out around $500 less compared to a 6900k system, i'll be more than happy.

There's no doubt that AMD needs a 7700k and 7500k competitor in the market ASAP but what we are already seeing from the 8 core chip is pretty encouraging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GgDZKGA89I


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> The market for the 8 core Ryzen chip is for people like myself that want to dable in some video recording and editing while multitasking without a hitch. Have you tried recording gameplay with X264 while gaming? It's next to impossible in some of the games I play with anything less than an 8 core intel chip. If Zen makes this possible while *forking out around $500 less compared to a 6900k system*, i'll be more than happy.
> 
> There's no doubt that AMD needs a 7700k and 7500k competitor in the market ASAP but what we are already seeing from the 8 core chip is pretty encouraging.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GgDZKGA89I


This is what it really boils down to, IMO: the money. Half of OCN likes getting the most bang for their buck with AMD. The other half, like myself, won't do a build that costs less than $6,000.

It's been this way for years and will probably remain this way for some time. It's just personal preference.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Come on, we both know that the difference between is 3.15 and 3.4 is negligible in the big picture. It won't make up for poor chip design / architecture.
> 
> AMD needs to find one market and go all in for that market. Clearly, desktop computing is not it. Which really sucks, btw, because at this rate the new Intel Skylake-X chips will probably top out around $2000. No competition allows for creativity in pricing.


-Says he will never by AMD again... check
-Claims poor design / architecture on CPU clearly showing promising results... check
-Claims AMD has always been behind intel.... check
-Makes claims that a company like AMD should put all their eggs in one basket... check (btw, thank god you don't run any large business with that sentiment)
-Claims it's moronic to have pins on a cpu and that is another slight towards AMD... check
-Claims AMD will always aim for being the budget leader when AMD has actually said they cannot be in that position anymore... check
-Claims offering value components means you can't have cutting edge technology... check
-Claims AMD 8c16t cpu can't hjang with 6700k because of a majority of games tested are singled threaded (ARMA... seriously?) .... check
-Claims he has to have the absolute best components but doesn't even list his PC.... check

So I just have two questions...

How did AMD hurt you and more importantly, how much is Intel paying you?

And you won't do a build less than $6,000? That sounds honestly like a self esteem issue to me if you are strictly basing your builds around a minimum budget spent. Then again, more money always means it's better right? How's the Bose & Beats setup going for you?


----------



## LuckyDuck69

It's been a problem for a lot of people for a very long time. It is pure idiocy that they originally designed their platform this way and even more moronic that they have not moved away from it.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=amd+bent+pins&tbm=vid

It's just poor engineering. Plain and simple. Engineers are supposed to solve problems and improve efficiency. AMD fails at this in their most basic platform design.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> It's been a problem for a lot of people for a very long time. It is pure idiocy that they originally designed their platform this way and even more moronic that they have not moved away from it.
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=amd+bent+pins&tbm=vid
> 
> It's just poor engineering. Plain and simple. Engineers are supposed to solve problems and improve efficiency. AMD fails at this in their most basic platform design.


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=vid&q=intel+bent+pins

Odd... intel seems to have a bent motherboard pin problem? Those engineers are sooooo stupid!

Your unfounded bias and clear trolling is seriously ridiculous.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> This is what it really boils down to, IMO: the money. Half of OCN likes getting the most bang for their buck with AMD. The other half, like myself, won't do a build that costs less than $6,000.
> 
> It's been this way for years and will probably remain this way for some time. It's just personal preference.


That means that half of ocn has rigs that worth at least 6k?

Interesting

Get down off your high horse..


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> It's been a problem for a lot of people for a very long time. It is pure idiocy that they originally designed their platform this way and even more moronic that they have not moved away from it.
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=amd+bent+pins&tbm=vid
> 
> It's just poor engineering. Plain and simple. Engineers are supposed to solve problems and improve efficiency. AMD fails at this in their most basic platform design.


Hai, engineer here - Engineers job is to be handed a piece of paper and told "here, make this work consistently and do it as cheap as possible"


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> -Says he will never by AMD again... check
> -Claims poor design / architecture on CPU clearly showing promising results... check
> -Claims AMD has always been behind intel.... check
> -Makes claims that a company like AMD should put all their eggs in one basket... check (btw, thank god you don't run any large business with that sentiment)
> -Claims it's moronic to have pins on a cpu and that is another slight towards AMD... check
> -Claims AMD will always aim for being the budget leader when AMD has actually said they cannot be in that position anymore... check
> -Claims offering value components means you can't have cutting edge technology... check
> -Claims AMD 8c16t cpu can't hjang with 6700k because of a majority of games tested are singled threaded (ARMA... seriously?) .... check
> -Claims he has to have the absolute best components but doesn't even list his PC.... check
> 
> So I just have two questions...
> 
> How did AMD hurt you and more importantly, how much is Intel paying you?
> 
> And you won't do a build less than $6,000? That sounds honestly like a self esteem issue to me if you are strictly basing your builds around a minimum budget spent. Then again, more money always means it's better right? How's the Bose & Beats setup going for you?


It's just what it costs, my friend. I don't base a build on the dollar amount. But, for example, the Titan XP is $1200 each. And you have to run SLi.. why wouldn't you? So the video cards alone put you at $2400 already. Add the 6950x and you're up to $4,000. By the time you add the rest of your components, CaseLabs case, and all of your EKWB waterblocks with associate fittings... it just gets up there in price.

And if you don't put your gear under water, don't even reply to this. My guess is that most AMD people do not put their stuff under water because they buy AMD to save money in the first place. Although, some might use the AIO coolers.

The point is, as a Sys Admin / Net Eng who works from home, it is my personal preference to build something that will handle anything thrown at it. I want the ability to multitask like a champ with zero limitations. No memory slower than DDR4-4000 and at least 32GB of it. No overclock less than 4.0 GHz. But other people may not care about this.. they may not need it. As I said before, it's just personal preference.


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> Hai, engineer here - Engineers job is to be handed a piece of paper and told "here, make this work consistently and do it as cheap as possible"


LOL.. also true.


----------



## kd5151

Dude you're getting a Dell.


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=vid&q=intel+bent+pins
> 
> Odd... intel seems to have a bent motherboard pin problem? Those engineers are sooooo stupid!
> 
> Your unfounded bias and clear trolling is seriously ridiculous.


Using common sense.. what do you think the ratio is between bent Intel motherboard pins and bent AMD cpu pins?


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *warpuck*
> 
> Forbes just wrote an article about Intel/AMD. Basically stated the new Zen may cause intel to release a i3K and the the 8 core Zen will match a 6700/7700 clock for clock in performance. It is still in the believe it when I see it locker as far as I am concerned. Meanwhile my credit card balance is approaching zero.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2016/12/24/intel-and-amd-to-go-head-to-head-in-2017-stunning-new-enthusiast-processors-coming/#58bc445c2eb3


Thanks for the link.
Quote:


> In short, AMD appears to have a CPU that can match Intel's equivalent, while offering some interesting enthusiast-orientated technology too. 2017 will definitely be interesting for PC gamers and enthusiasts *and I already have review samples on my desk to do some testing ready for the launch* so make sure to follow me on Forbes, Twitter or Facebook and watch this space.


I wonder if this he also has a Ryzen review sample. Other than that, Kabylake appears to be pretty ho hum (Skylake with a different skin) so not really excited to read that.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Using common sense.. what do you think the ratio is between bent Intel motherboard pins and bent AMD cpu pins?


I've had a Athlon 5400+ that had one bent pin on the side. It took me 10 seconds to bend it back into form using a razor blade. I had a 775 that came with a bent pin on the motherboard. I had to return the motherboard and they store that I bought it at wouldn't give me a refund because they said it was negligence on my behalf. Now I always check the pins in any intel board.

I don't see it as a design flaw on AMD's part at all.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Once again, this ES chip is running at a base of 3.1 instead of the promised 3.4, it also barely had any boost.. And it was still only around 10% off a 6900k in _gaming_, the gaming part is important because in lightly threaded loads the 6900k can boost from 3.7 all the way to 4.0Ghz if the game is really lousy.

Some of you must be trolling "lololol, AMD 8 core losing to a 6700k".. You're aware the $1100 6900K also loses to the smaller chips in gaming scenarios right? These 8 core monsters weren't just designed to play games that usually benefit far more from higher clocks than more cores. Unbelievable.. Not to mention for all we know completed 8 core Ryzen could boost to 3.8 - 4Ghz+, I would be shocked if that happened, but if it does then it will give Intel a big wake up call.

If you want a 6700K competitor, and gaming is the primary purpose of your system, then wait for the inevitably higher clocked 4/6 cores.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Several reasons. Some basic. Some technical.
> 
> *Basic reason example: design. I think it is completely moronic to put the pins on the object you will be handling with your hands (the cpu).
> *
> Technical reason overview: AMD is consistently just 'good enough' and that is exactly where they want to be. They made a business decision years ago be the affordable pc component company. You can't make the best components and support cutting edge R&D if you're striving to fill the affordable segment of the market. You just can't. I'm a snob when it comes to my components... I want the best I can get for what my build is meant to do.


Seriously?









Postal described what this thread has turned into perfectly..


----------



## motherpuncher

There is way too much stupid in this thread. This is the 8 core chip, not the 4 core...wait until that is released OFFICIALLY, and compare THAT to the i7 6700. This 8 core part wasn't even running it's stock clocks, AND IT"S AN 8 CORE PART, COMPARE IT TO THE 6900 TO GET AN IDEA OF WHERE IT STANDS!!! This should not be too difficult for any of you. The 6700 has 4c/8t, this has 8c,16t... it runs at a lower clock for a reason. The base clock of the 6900 is 3.2 GHz for a reason. What the hell is so difficult to understand?

Edit: GorillaSceptre understands... and beat me too it. But most of you clearly aren't paying attention.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Several reasons. Some basic. Some technical.
> 
> Basic reason example: design. I think it is completely moronic to put the pins on the object you will be handling with your hands (the cpu).
> 
> Technical reason overview: AMD is consistently just 'good enough' and that is exactly where they want to be. They made a business decision years ago be the affordable pc component company. You can't make the best components and support cutting edge R&D if you're striving to fill the affordable segment of the market. You just can't. I'm a snob when it comes to my components... I want the best I can get for what my build is meant to do.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Postal described what this thread has turned into perfectly..


I hope, at least this is not completely moronic according to him.









Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## EvoBeardy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> Of course I could be wrong and AMD has a super scaling cpu in it's hand and it can do with ease 5ghz, *but if they got their base clock at 3.4, I don't think we'll see much from them in that regard.*


I'm not singling you out here, but why has this been a repeated statement? *"Only 3.4Ghz, therefore it's gonna be trash"*. How does that work?
It's a _brand new_ architectural design for AMD and the fabs, it's got nothing but refinement ahead of it. What new architectural designs have come out with high frequencies? They refine further over time...

Yes, I suppose you're trying to base it off theoretical better overclockability, I understand, but what's the base clock got to do with that? What about the lower TDP? What about scaling with overclocking?
All questions completely unanswered.

It's like you saying you don't like the taste of something when you've never eaten it, and not really heard about how it tastes from others either.

As an aside, some of the things going on in this thread make me feel like I'm reading a Call of Duty vs Battlefield thread or something...


----------



## LuckyDuck69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Ok, so your work computer obviously needs two Titan XP's and a BW-E cpu.... Obviously stability isn't number one or else you'd be running a Xeon first of all. Where's the professional gpu's also?
> 
> As far as it looks to me it's a gaming build as $2400 worth of titan xp's in SLI certainly isn't a decision based on performance outside of it.
> 
> That said, the fact that you are so disillusioned into thinking I should not reply because I choose not to watercool my 4790k just shows that you are indeed a person that just buys expensive gear because it's expensive. But nice dig at *assuming AMD builders are just budget builders*.
> 
> You're probably also the guy that brings a Ferrari to the race track and get's passed by cars that you would claim are crap.


They are. But there's nothing wrong with that. To each their own. I'm not judging.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Yes, because it is a crime now to share your opinion when it differs with others. The fact of the matter is quite simple. AMD fans cannot offer any proof of their convictions. They don't have to, of course, because it is just a personal preference. But if they were pushed as to why AMD is still relevant to the desktop market.. they could not provide any fact to support their argument. AMD has been consistently outclassed by Intel for several years now. And the only thing the AMD camp has to say in retaliation is.. "but I can build something almost as good for half the cost." It always comes down to that.
> 
> So let's all stop pretending. AMD isn't complete garbage. They make good stuff. But it is nowhere close to the Intel camp. So let's all calm down and just accept that reality.




We need more information on OC headroom and final base/Turbo clocks for the non-octacores, but the core strength is readily apparent in these tests, if they are in fact accurate. Your bizarre $6K build niche aside, getting the majority of performance for significantly less is just good practice as a consumer. For those who measure themselves via their rigs, perhaps not, but then I'm not sure why you'd visit a Zen thread.. it's not a reasonable assumption to think that AMD might come out over the top of Intel with a chip that savages both the mainstream and HEDT lines in every performance metric. If it overclocks well, however, and core strength is in line with these tests, it's going to offer excellent gaming performance and HEDT competition. That may not excite you personally, but the $6k build niche isn't paying an x86 company's bills.


----------



## nakano2k1

Is Glofo producing these CPUs? Or is this a TMSC job?


----------



## Rabit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Using common sense.. what do you think the ratio is between bent Intel motherboard pins and bent AMD cpu pins?


5 to 1 for intel









But successful fixing ratio for bend AMD pins to Intel motherboard by home methods is probably 10 to 1 or better for AMD









Fixing bend CPU pins on AMD CPU is quite easy without off speciality tools I use nails and needle try it with intel motherboard you throw away motherboard through window









I fixed all AMD CPUs that I encounter around 8-10 for bend Intel motherboard I seen 4 and 0 repaired







you need BGA station and new socket or watchmaker with steady hand and proper equipment.

Summary :

Common sense you drop AMD CPU bend pins no problem 5-10 min later you fix it in Home.

Intel you drop cpu on socket bend pins this take from 1-2 hours *(new mobo) to few days








Options:
A) New Mobo
B) Repair shop they giving 50% chance for repair no returns accepted BGA method with socket change
C) if bended few pin - watchmaker with steady hand and proper equipment.

out off topic you mention earlier something about i5 6600 is overpriced and weaker compared to my 50$ i5 3470 @ 4Ghz Turbo 4.2Ghz


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Is Glofo producing these CPUs? Or is this a TMSC job?


Glofo makes them.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

So far I'm liking what I'm seeing with Zen / Ryzen / whateverthehellitscalled, even if single thread performance isn't as good as Intel they still have all those cores and threads







not to mention if the CPU's and Mobo's are priced correctly people who want heaps of cores but don't want to pay the extreme premium Intel demands... AMD should have a pretty good win. I Just hope it can clock to at least 4 - 4.5GHz.

For me personally unless reviews find some serious fault with retail samples I think AMD will be getting a lot of my money next year














.


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Glofo makes them.


To add more info, Fab 8 in Saratoga, NY is providing the chips for Zen and made Polaris as well.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Reports-Chip-made-by-GlobalFoundries-beats-Intel-9176925.php


----------



## Serandur

It's an exciting showing to see AMD being a very real competitor to Intel again, but it's no good trying to reach any definitive conclusions on these results in either direction.

Simply put, we have no idea how high these things will clock (which I would imagine is of great interest to gaming enthusiasts and those of us here on Overclock.net). Given comparable IPC (as these results demonstrate), end performance across comparable core-counts/products between AMD and Intel are going to come down to Zen's overclocking results.

Then there's the price. No doubt Zen will undercut Broadwell-E's current pricing, but if it's by enough to make Zen a decisively compelling alternative, Intel can and will respond by cutting their own prices (and it's about time imo, Zen is for sure exciting in at least that regard).

Then Skylake-X later in the year is a factor. Given that it will be manufactured on Intel's improved 14nm node and is Skylake-based, it won't be surprising to see 6 and 8-core Skylakes overclocking to 4.5-4.8 GHz coupled with some minor IPC improvements generally and some potentially major changes in certain workloads provided that Skylake-X does indeed get AVX-512 and the rumored L2/L3 cache changes.

TLDR: Still waiting on OC results, pricing, and Intel's reaction, but Zen is looking good so far.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkRadeon7000*
> 
> Just to get some advice from people,I am upgrading from a FX 8350 for a new build and was going to get the 6700k.I use my PC mainly for gaming.Looking at these benches should I just get 6700k or wait for the rival Ryzen SKU?


wait for Zen. Should be abke to get a better comparison.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> It's an exciting showing to see AMD being a very real competitor to Intel again, but it's no good trying to reach any definitive conclusions on these results in either direction.
> 
> Simply put, we have no idea how high these things will clock (which I would imagine is of great interest to gaming enthusiasts and those of us here on Overclock.net). Given comparable IPC (as these results demonstrate), end performance across comparable core-counts/products between AMD and Intel are going to come down to Zen's overclocking results.
> 
> Then there's the price. No doubt Zen will undercut Broadwell-E's current pricing, but if it's by enough to make Zen a decisively compelling alternative, Intel can and will respond by cutting their own prices (and it's about time imo, Zen is for sure exciting in at least that regard).
> 
> Then Skylake-X later in the year is a factor. Given that it will be manufactured on Intel's improved 14nm node and is Skylake-based, it won't be surprising to see 6 and 8-core Skylakes overclocking to 4.5-4.8 GHz coupled with some minor IPC improvements generally and some potentially major changes in certain workloads provided that Skylake-X does indeed get AVX-512 and the rumored L2/L3 cache changes.
> 
> TLDR: Still waiting on OC results, pricing, and Intel's reaction, but Zen is looking good so far.


I agree with the above, though I can't help myself when I see some people pointing to the charts and calling the results unimpressive. I couldn't speak to the veracity of the charts or the quality of the sample, but indulging the exercise and looking at the charts for what they are, it shows an impressive boost in core strength for AMD. As you say, the clocks will be everything - both in terms of base/Turbo clocks and overclocking headroom. That said, if these charts represent accurate Zen performance, then the design itself appears to be rather impressive.


----------



## BeepBeep2

I know we're 27 pages into this thread already, but this ES is exactly the same OPN as the Cinebench leak we saw last week.


----------



## soth7676

Well it is not only a matter on how high Ryzen will OC but even if it OC's to 5ghz, how well will it scale with the increase in frequency. There is no gurantee with intel or AMD that it will scale in a linear manner.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soth7676*
> 
> Well it is not only a matter on how high Ryzen will OC but even if it OC's to 5ghz, how well will it scale with the increase in frequency. There is no gurantee with intel or AMD that it will scale in a linear manner.


If it's a CPU limited task, it's going to scale very nearly linearly.

A small handful of tasks that are extremely memory or I/O limited won't, but these are exceptions, not the rule.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeepBeep2*
> 
> I know we're 27 pages into this thread already, but this ES is exactly the same OPN as the Cinebench leak we saw last week.


Wake me when there's an official benchmark thread.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeepBeep2*
> 
> I know we're 27 pages into this thread already, but this ES is exactly the same OPN as the Cinebench leak we saw last week.


The OPN doesn't matter as much as the fact that this is from a much more credible source.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

AMD is late to the game with 14nm. Intel has had 3 generations to perfect it. Maybe they'll come up with something to compete with Kaby Lake by the time Intel is on their 2nd gen 10mm.

Definitely a solid upgrade for anybody who uses AMD as a hobby.


----------



## Utroz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> AMD is late to the game with 14nm. Intel has had 3 generations to perfect it. Maybe they'll come up with something to compete with Kaby Lake by the time Intel is on their 2nd gen 10mm.
> 
> Definitely a solid upgrade for anybody who uses AMD as a hobby.


Even the mighty Intel had issues with 14nm. The 14nm LPP that GF is using to make AMD's Zen or Ryzen cpu's is really more like a 20nm node with FinFets. It is going to be interesting so see if that actually helps clocks speeds as some of the smaller processes have had thermal density issues. Kaby Lake per core IPC is the same as Skylake, so not too worried about it. If AMD can keep up with the Broadwell core in most things it would be huge as that is usually not far from Skylake. Granted AVX2 is still going to be Intel dominated. Personally I would rather have a cheaper AMD 8C16T with 90% per core IPC compared to Skylake and not pay the huge Intel HEDT Tax so I can have more than 4C8T. This is contingent on AMD getting the clock speeds as close to Broadwell-E as possible (well higher would be nice but not gonna happen).


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> Definitely a solid upgrade for anybody who uses AMD as a hobby.


While I'll reserve final judgement until after I see what Ryzen can do in end-user hands, all indications are that Zen will be a solid architecture, and not just for hobbyists or those who only prefer AMD.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> AMD is late to the game with 14nm. Intel has had 3 generations to perfect it. Maybe they'll come up with something to compete with Kaby Lake by the time Intel is on their 2nd gen 10mm.
> 
> Definitely a solid upgrade for anybody who uses AMD as a hobby.


Do you know something the rest of us don't


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Utroz*
> 
> Even the mighty Intel had issues with 14nm. The 14nm LPP that GF is using to make AMD's Zen or Ryzen cpu's is really more like a 20nm node with FinFets. It is going to be interesting so see if that actually helps clocks speeds as some of the smaller processes have had thermal density issues. Kaby Lake per core IPC is the same as Skylake, so not too worried about it. If AMD can keep up with the Broadwell core in most things it would be huge as that is usually not far from Skylake. Granted AVX2 is still going to be Intel dominated. Personally I would rather have a cheaper AMD 8C16T with 90% per core IPC compared to Skylake and not pay the huge Intel HEDT Tax so I can have more than 4C8T. This is contingent on AMD getting the clock speeds as close to Broadwell-E as possible (well higher would be nice but not gonna happen).


The AMD chips will have to be very inexpensive to compete at a price/performance level. However, they have to pay off R&D.

Intel has come down on pricing:

6700k is $279
6800k is $339
6850k is $529


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> Intel has come down on pricing:
> 
> 6700k is $279
> 6800k is $339
> 6850k is $529


Where are you seeing these prices?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Where are you seeing these prices?


Edit: I see this is in-store only. Still, I wonder if Fry's would price match.

http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294964566/intel_processors

I was at Microcenter today and did a doubletake. They had about 20 6700k in the locked display case. I think they are trying to dump inventory in anticipation of Kaby lake.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> The AMD chips will have to be very inexpensive to compete at a price/performance level. However, they have to pay off R&D.
> 
> Intel has come down on pricing:
> 
> 6700k is $279
> 6800k is $339
> 6850k is $529


How so? Ryzen is better than at least 2 of those according to results shown by AMD and maybe all 3. They also have a complete platform to offer including high end graphics cards and a strong gaming ecosystem. So if intel ever did crater their prices that much it would indicate AMD must have something they are concerned about.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294964566/intel_processors
> 
> I was at Microcenter today and did a doubletake. They had about 20 6700k in the locked display case. I think they are trying to dump inventory in anticipation of Kaby lake.


Those prices are normal for Microcenter, which uses these CPUs as loss leaders. They've followed this pattern for years.

Intel has not cut prices on any of these parts and they are still near Intel's suggested retail price in most places, though the 6800K is available for $390 from both Newegg and Amazon.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Ryzen is better than at least 2 of those according to results shown by AMD and maybe all 3.


Depends on task and will depend on how Ryzen OCs.

A Ryzen that doesn't OC at all will be worse than any of those CPUs, at least in my hands, in the majority of areas, and one that doesn't OC well will likely be worse in lightly threaded tasks. Even one that does OC very well will almost certainly still fall short of the 6700K in some areas.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyDuck69*
> 
> Yes, because it is a crime now to share your opinion when it differs with others. The fact of the matter is quite simple. AMD fans cannot offer any proof of their convictions. They don't have to, of course, because it is just a personal preference. But if they were pushed as to why AMD is still relevant to the desktop market.. they could not provide any fact to support their argument. AMD has been consistently outclassed by Intel for several years now. And the only thing the AMD camp has to say in retaliation is.. "but I can build something almost as good for half the cost." It always comes down to that.
> 
> So let's all stop pretending. AMD isn't complete garbage. They make good stuff. But it is nowhere close to the Intel camp. So let's all calm down and just accept that reality.


Reported doesn't mean "*accept reality*" , It means *something happens wrong in this thread*.You're doing wrong in this AMD's thread.You're responsible for spreading stupidity/fanboyism Post.There is no word garbage or reality ,Stop being Troll in this AMD's Thread.Troll doesn't mean You're right about Zen or AMD.rather Playing dirty job in this AMD's Thread.

Otherwise tell me It's garbage ?

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-core-i7-7700k-delidded-reapplied-tim-reduces-temps-by-30c.228763/
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/my-i7-7700k-has-arrived-insights-benchies-overclocks-inside-now-with-delid.2493250/

Before ( 90 degree) - https://s27.postimg.org/mgu5i6sc3/5ghz_P95_27_9_before.jpg
After ( 64 degree) - https://s28.postimg.org/lg9hfqj6l/5ghz_P95_27_9_after.jpg

You pay money for garbage TIM ? am I doing troll? It's that reality ? No I don't want to use this term to bash Intel because I'm not Troll.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> Edit: I see this is in-store only. Still, I wonder if Fry's would price match.
> 
> http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294964566/intel_processors
> 
> I was at Microcenter today and did a doubletake. They had about 20 6700k in the locked display case. I think they are trying to dump inventory in anticipation of Kaby lake.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Those prices are normal for Microcenter, which uses these CPUs as loss leaders. They've followed this pattern for years.
> 
> Intel has not cut prices on any of these parts and they are still near Intel's suggested retail price in most places, though the 6800K is available for $390 from both Newegg and Amazon.
> Depends on task and will depend on how Ryzen OCs.
> 
> A Ryzen that doesn't OC at all will be worse than any of those CPUs, at least in my hands, in the majority of areas, and one that doesn't OC well will likely be worse in lightly threaded tasks. Even one that does OC very well will almost certainly still fall short of the 6700K in some areas.


Makes sense, as their EVGA power supplies are ridiculously expensive. After overhearing a conversation between employees, I learned they make serious money from extended warranties.

I am also hoping Zen responds well to overclocking and can be delidded easily. I have 4 radiators waiting for a CPU to cool.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> Makes sense, as their EVGA power supplies are ridiculously expensive. After overhearing a conversation between employees, I learned they make serious money from extended warranties.
> 
> I am also hoping Zen responds well to overclocking and can be delidded easily. I have 4 radiators waiting for a CPU to cool.


I hope the rumored more expensive version of the SR7 is soldered so no real need to delid.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> ..
> Depends on task and will depend on how Ryzen OCs.
> 
> A Ryzen that doesn't OC at all will be worse than any of those CPUs, at least in my hands, in the majority of areas, and one that doesn't OC well will likely be worse in lightly threaded tasks. Even one that does OC very well will almost certainly still fall short of the 6700K in some areas.


Of course there are unknowns thats obvious. From the only official results so far however, that is the case. I also think you are overestimating how much of an impact overclocking will have on the decision to buy Ryzen or not buy Ryzen.


----------



## Norz

Just anything unofficial is just bullcrap...why bother?

When official benchmarks surface, thats when we have confirmation....

This tread is still alive because "I want to belive"


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Norz*
> 
> Just anything unofficial is just bullcrap...why bother?
> 
> When official benchmarks surface, thats when we have confirmation....
> 
> This tread is still alive because "I want to belive"


You dont seem to understand why rumors exist.
And this thread exist because people are excited for the return of AMD.

Your comment however exist because you feel threatened.
Which is a positive sign


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> I also think you are overestimating how much of an impact overclocking will have on the decision to buy Ryzen or not buy Ryzen.


It's not going to have any impact on those who don't OC, of course, and will only have a small impact on AMD themselves.

However, for those of us who do OC, the precise magnitude of likely to be achievable will directly translate into performance and will thus be a major factor.

I can reliably expect a 25-35% OC out of Haswell-E or Broadwell-E, and both my 5820K and 6800K systems perform roughly on par with a 6900K in multi-threaded tasks, and noticeably better in lightly threaded tasks. This is not insignificant.

A Ryzen 8c/16t part at roughly AMD demo clocks, is going to be mostly useless to those willing and able to OC if it doesn't OC, but will be the obvious choice if it OCs well. Being able to reliably achieve more than 4GHz on all cores will have me recommending the parts over almost anything in Intel's lineup, if prices are remotely reasonable, barring very specific circumstances. Significantly less than this on all cores, and I'll probably be recommending the same things I recommend today, barring very specific circumstances.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Norz*
> 
> Just anything unofficial is just bullcrap...why bother?


Because not everything unofficial is 'bullcrap'. Quite a few leaks turn out to be accurate and quite a few official benchmarks, accurate as they may be, turn out to be misleading.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkRadeon7000*
> 
> Just to get some advice from people,I am upgrading from a FX 8350 for a new build and was going to get the 6700k.I use my PC mainly for gaming.Looking at these benches should I just get 6700k or wait for the rival Ryzen SKU?


Zen is 3 months away minimum and it is not going to be better than Intel with the main advantage of saving you up to $50 on an i7 7/6700K equivalent and maybe another $30 on the mobo. That's the best case scenario. Zen may not clock well and suck for gaming so you waited 3+ months for nothing.

You can't go wrong with an i7 7/6700K.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> Zen is 3 months away minimum and it is not going to be better than Intel with the main advantage of saving you up to $50 on an i7 7/6700K equivalent and maybe another $30 on the mobo. That's the best case scenario. Zen may not clock well and suck for gaming so you waited 3+ months for nothing.
> 
> You can't go wrong with an i7 7/6700K.


Yes suck for gaming.
Probably why AMD gave a presentation with several games where they had Zen and i7-6900K compared and Zen did slightly better....
Chances are pretty big that AMD feel confident that their CPUs will no longer be bottleneck and it will do just as good in gaming as even Kaby Lake.

The real kicker will be cheaper prices compared to the hugely overpriced Intel CPUs.

Intel fanvoys crack me up. Worshipping a company that have abused the opportunity to milk the customers since AMD have been mostly gone in the enthusiast market
A company that have brought crappy 5-10% IPC gains for new CPUs. A company that have met the wall regarding CPU development that they have concentrated more on developing IGPs on even gamer CPUs which they know will go inside gamer rigs with dedicated graphic cards. Like these need a fast IGP.

This theead is so full of sad people. We even have people complaining the Zen tested here is only 10% from the 6900K where previously people thought Zen would only match Sandy Bridge.

Good job people. But you aint fooling anyone with that Intel fanboyism.


----------



## Blameless

I think Imouto is being sarcastic, but I can't be certain.

Anyway, if DarkRadeon7000 has been "mainly gaming" on an FX-8350, any Ryzen part is sure to be an enormous upgrade. That said, depending on the precise gaming scenarios planned on a 6700K could still have an appreciable edge. Not something I'd fuss over, personally, but there are situations where I'd need to swap out my Intel hex cores for a faster quad to get certain minimum frame rates in certain titles. Most games, at most settings that most people will be playing, will be GPU limited by Ryzen level performance most of the time.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

I personally would wait 3 months before upgrading. Why spend a fortune buying a whole new Intel set-up now when we've got here what looks like a disruptive product launching in the market that will at least bring Intel prices down or offer a CPU that offers tremendous price-performance compared to what is available right now?

Although that last part is based on the assumption that a price-per-dollar-king Ryzen 6-core CPU will launch by March.


----------



## Norz

It was just my thoughts about it guys, Im as excited as I can be about AMD making a comeback.
Im a realist, cheers

Happy Christmas


----------



## Quantum Reality

So I've been looking at the benchmarks, and I've got to say, if Ryzen can punch at the 6700K weight class (and it certainly looks like it'll blow the doors off the Intel 47xx series), I'm pretty much sold, especially if AMD continues with an easy to use retention mechanism instead of that godawful LGA pushpin design.

What I'm really hoping for is an ASRock AM4 variant that can handle DDR3 and DDR4 so I can "bridge" over to the new CPU without dropping a ton of money, heh.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I think Imouto is being sarcastic, but I can't be certain.
> 
> Anyway, if DarkRadeon7000 has been "mainly gaming" on an FX-8350, any Ryzen part is sure to be an enormous upgrade. That said, depending on the precise gaming scenarios planned on a 6700K could still have an appreciable edge. Not something I'd fuss over, personally, but there are situations where I'd need to swap out my Intel hex cores for a faster quad to get certain minimum frame rates in certain titles. Most games, at most settings that most people will be playing, will be GPU limited by Ryzen level performance most of the time.


Well if Intel can do i7-6700K at 4.2GHz and 8-core 6900K at 3.7GHx. Then AMD can do higher than the 8-core 3.5GHz for 4-core CPUs.
Since 3.5GHz is only slightly slower than 3.7GHz 6900K, then AMD should have something close to 6700K too for gamers.

Unless their process at GloFo and Samsung is poor compared to Intels 14nm though.
But considering AMD marketed Ryzen as 3.4GHz +, it will happen.


----------



## Marios145

They don't need to hit 5ghz, anything above 4ghz is enough on 8cores, at least for me, i prefer my games GPU-limited.
CPU bottlenecks appear mostly above 60fps, and i'm trusting the 8core will handle minimums better.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> It's not going to have any impact on those who don't OC, of course, and will only have a small impact on AMD themselves.
> 
> However, for those of us who do OC, the precise magnitude of likely to be achievable will directly translate into performance and will thus be a major factor.
> 
> I can reliably expect a 25-35% OC out of Haswell-E or Broadwell-E, and both my 5820K and 6800K systems perform roughly on par with a 6900K in multi-threaded tasks, and noticeably better in lightly threaded tasks. This is not insignificant.
> 
> A Ryzen 8c/16t part at roughly AMD demo clocks, is going to be mostly useless to those willing and able to OC if it doesn't OC, but will be the obvious choice if it OCs well. Being able to reliably achieve more than 4GHz on all cores will have me recommending the parts over almost anything in Intel's lineup, if prices are remotely reasonable, barring very specific circumstances. Significantly less than this on all cores, and I'll probably be recommending the same things I recommend today, barring very specific circumstances.
> Because not everything unofficial is 'bullcrap'. Quite a few leaks turn out to be accurate and quite a few official benchmarks, accurate as they may be, turn out to be misleading.


Yes we've established that overclocking is a make or break feature for you personally (and just to clarify, IMO there is a better chance that Ryzen can reach competitive clocks, as there is that it can't).
As for the rest of my OP, I think the rest of the platform and AMD's gaming ecosystem will have more of an impact on an enthusiasts decision to buy as overclocking will.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yes suck for gaming.
> Probably why AMD gave a presentation with several games where they had Zen and i7-6900K compared and Zen did slightly better....
> Chances are pretty big that AMD feel confident that their CPUs will no longer be bottleneck and it will do just as good in gaming as even Kaby Lake.


The i7 6900K isn't a gaming CPU and my exact words were "it is not going to be better than Intel".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The real kicker will be cheaper prices compared to the hugely overpriced Intel CPUs.


If you think that AMD will price their CPUs much lower than Intel with competitive products you're in denial.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Intel fanvoys crack me up.


The pot said. Anyway, not fanboys in general? Guess some get a pass.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Worshipping a company that have abused the opportunity to milk the customers since AMD have been mostly gone in the enthusiast market
> A company that have brought crappy 5-10% IPC gains for new CPUs. A company that have met the wall regarding CPU development that they have concentrated more on developing IGPs on even gamer CPUs which they know will go inside gamer rigs with dedicated graphic cards. Like these need a fast IGP.


Who is worshiping anything? He asked for opinions and I gave him mine. It is up to him to see if saving around $100 is worth waiting more than 3 months.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> This theead is so full of sad people. We even have people complaining the Zen tested here is only 10% from the 6900K where previously people thought Zen would only match Sandy Bridge.


You're pissing all over the place now. He asked for a gaming CPU and the i7 6900K isn't. If he was in for a 6 or 8 core CPU I'd wait but for gaming he can't go wrong with an i7 6/7700K.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Good job people. But you aint fooling anyone with that Intel fanboyism.


Dissing out every opinion that doesn't match with yours as fanboyism is much better, pot.


----------



## kd5151




----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yes suck for gaming.
> Probably why AMD gave a presentation with several games where they had Zen and i7-6900K compared and Zen did slightly better....
> Chances are pretty big that AMD feel confident that their CPUs will no longer be bottleneck and it will do just as good in gaming as even Kaby Lake.
> 
> The real kicker will be cheaper prices compared to the hugely overpriced Intel CPUs.
> 
> Intel fanvoys crack me up. Worshipping a company that have abused the opportunity to milk the customers since AMD have been mostly gone in the enthusiast market
> A company that have brought crappy 5-10% IPC gains for new CPUs. A company that have met the wall regarding CPU development that they have concentrated more on developing IGPs on even gamer CPUs which they know will go inside gamer rigs with dedicated graphic cards. Like these need a fast IGP.
> 
> This theead is so full of sad people. We even have people complaining the Zen tested here is only 10% from the 6900K where previously people thought Zen would only match Sandy Bridge.
> 
> Good job people. But you aint fooling anyone with that Intel fanboyism.


I am surprised Intel has catered so well to the enthusiast market while AMD took a break. They have been offering multiplier unlocked midrage processors for around $200 to $250.


----------



## Diogenes5

Wish there was a better downvoting mechanism on this site. Too many fanboys.

Ren looks amazing for making the PC CPU market finally a competitive one again. It's total BS that Intel has basically sold us 5 years of the i5 2500k/2600k. Performance has been almost completely stagnant on this side of PC hardware because Intel plows all its R&D into becoming competitive with ARM in the mobile market.

I think Ryzen is good for what it is. Clock for clock it is competitive with Intel. Being on a new 14nm process being produced by Fabs that AMD doesn't own and didn't design, it probably will not be able to consistently hit the high clocks a skylake or kaby lake can. And being a new platform, it probably won't have the kind of features in a mature chipset like the Z170. However, it will be hands down a better value clock to clock; core to core.

I'm hoping AMD takes back a ton of high-marging server marketshare and uses that money to refine it's manufacturing process to get better yields and efficiency. 2nd gen Ryzen will probably be able to compete with the 6700k/7700k in terms of overclock and the chipsets will only get better. Them doing better is only going to help everyone. If they start taking desktop marketshare away from Intel; intel will be forced to follow suit. I'm thinking a 7700k will be the baseline CPU at that point (Eff you Intel for trying to make hyperthreading a $100 feature) and the cost per CPU core will go down. If the AMD 8 core, 16 thread cpu is $500 and competitive and enterprise and desktop users notice and gobble them up; Intel has no choice to but to lower the price on their equivalent 6900k down to something like $600 or $700 max (instead of the $1000 it's priced at now).

So even if you are an Intel fanboy; competition is good and will lower your prices anyways while offering better products.

I have no intention of selling my 6700k/z170a computer for at least a year, but I'm still excited at what AMD is offering to consumers.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> The i7 6900K isn't a gaming CPU and my exact words were "it is not going to be better than Intel".
> If you think that AMD will price their CPUs much lower than Intel with competitive products you're in denial.
> The pot said. Anyway, not fanboys in general? Guess some get a pass.
> Who is worshiping anything? He asked for opinions and I gave him mine. It is up to him to see if saving around $100 is worth waiting more than 3 months.
> You're pissing all over the place now. He asked for a gaming CPU and the i7 6900K isn't. If he was in for a 6 or 8 core CPU I'd wait but for gaming he can't go wrong with an i7 6/7700K.
> Dissing out every opinion that doesn't match with yours as fanboyism is much better, pot.


Why isn't the 6900k not a gaming chip? Am I missing something? Does the 6700k have more computational power?


----------



## ku4eto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why isn't the 6900k not a gaming chip? Am I missing something? Does the 6700k have more computational power?


Because it is not. The games that utilize 8 threads - i can count them on 1 of my hands. 16 threads? 0. Thats for rendering, blending and such.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Better than a useless quad core.

Look at how well it games and murders every other task. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/8

Get real please.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Get real please.


Ditto.

What if you're not doing any of those other tasks? He asked for a gaming CPU and you don't need to dish out several hundreds more for no reason. Same gaming performance (ugh, I hate these terms) Hence, a productivity CPU that can run games as much as it can do heavy lifting.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why isn't the 6900k not a gaming chip? Am I missing something? Does the 6700k have more computational power?


It has fewer cores, but more power per core. Most games run better on a 6700k.

It's like Intel's most powerful smallblock.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why isn't the 6900k not a gaming chip? Am I missing something? Does the 6700k have more computational power?


Because the new API uses six threads at most. You can run separate physics threads, but that is about it.


----------



## ku4eto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Better than a useless quad core.
> 
> Look at how well it games and murders every other task. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/8
> 
> Get real please.


Sooo, you are showing benchmarks, where all games are GPU bottlenecked? And in those benches, where the difference in FPS is like.... 0.2 FPS? Thats even less than 1. This is margin of error of the detecting software.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> What if you're not doing any of those other tasks? He asked for a gaming CPU and you don't need to dish out several hundreds more for no reason. Same gaming performance (ugh, I hate these terms) Hence, a productivity CPU that can run games as much as it can do heavy lifting.


Yes I get what you are saying.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> It has fewer cores, but more power per core. Most games run better on a 6700k.
> 
> It's like Intel's most powerful smallblock.


I'm not sure about most games run better. Reviews I have seen does not illustrate that. I see a difference of about 1 to 0.5 fps.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Because the new API uses six threads at most. You can run separate physics threads, but that is about it.


What API are you talking about?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What API are you talking about?


Dx12/Vulkan/Mantle.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yes I get what you are saying.
> I'm not sure about most games run better. Reviews I have seen does not illustrate that. I see a difference of about 1 to 0.5 fps.
> What API are you talking about?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*


You know what is missing?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> You know what is missing?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yes I get what you are saying.
> I'm not sure about most games run better. Reviews I have seen does not illustrate that. I see a difference of about 1 to 0.5 fps.
> What API are you talking about?


Another chart that proves a different point?


----------



## renx

In the best case scenario, the 8-core Ryzen will run 500Mhz slower than a 6700K, and we can safely assume that Ryzen's IPC won't be better than Intel's.
Given that games are not taking advantage of 8c/16t, it's not difficult imagine the 6700K being slightly better for gaming.

.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Yes we've established that overclocking is a make or break feature for you personally


I'd imagine it will be a make or break feature for a significant portion of overclock.net, all the more so because it will make or break the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why isn't the 6900k not a gaming chip? Am I missing something? Does the 6700k have more computational power?


The 6900K is a fine gaming chip...but the 6700K still does better in the majority of titles that become CPU limited because the number of games that make good use of more than four cores are still few.

The 6700K is faster clock for clock and can appreciably higher than BW-E (and is clocked significantly higher stock as well).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> i'd take 6900K over 6700K anyday if both were priced similarly.


I'd take a 5820K or a 6800K over a 6700K any day, if both were priced similarly.

*looks at sig*

Actually, it appears I did this very thing on at least two separate days. Of course, I do more than gaming on my systems.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> i'd take 6900K over 6700K anyday if both were priced similarly.


Of course you would if they were priced similarly, but if you are only gaming why would you pay hundreds more?


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Of course you would if they were priced similarly, but if you are only gaming why would you pay hundreds more?


no one force you to pay more, you can buy whatever you want.

my point is if someone think 8 core Zen cpu isn't good enough at gaming and they don't know how to oc at all, there will be 6 core and 4 core Zen for them.

8 core is overkill for you, you don't know how to handle it, just wait for benchmarks of 4 core Zen and then decide.


----------



## buttface420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Travieso*
> 
> 8 core is overkill for you, you don't know how to handle it


thats what they said about the fx 8 series too. that its 8 cores, it oc's blah blah blah.still got whooped by a locked i5 2400 in gaming. just like this cpu, getting whooped by locked i5's, you can be excitied, im not excited.


----------



## Travieso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> thats what they said about the fx 8 series too. that its 8 cores, it oc's blah blah blah.still got whooped by a locked i5 2400 in gaming. just like this cpu, getting whooped by locked i5's, you can be excitied, im not excited.


i7 6900K, a $1000 cpu, still gets kicked in the ass by an outdated i7 4790K in gaming, what's your opinion about this ?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Dx12/Vulkan/Mantle.


DX 11 been using more than 6 threads. Dx 12 also. Even doom uses all threads on m Xeon.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I'd imagine it will be a make or break feature for a significant portion of overclock.net, all the more so because it will make or break the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition.
> The 6900K is a fine gaming chip...but the 6700K still does better in the majority of titles that become CPU limited because the number of games that make good use of more than four cores are still few.
> 
> The 6700K is faster clock for clock and can appreciably higher than BW-E (and is clocked significantly higher stock as well).
> Yes, but only because the *7*700K is the best pure gaming CPU.
> I'd take a 5820K or a 6800K over a 6700K any day, if both were priced similarly.
> 
> *looks at sig*
> 
> Actually, it appears I did this very thing on at least two separate days. Of course, I do more than gaming on my systems.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Of course you would if they were priced similarly, but if you are only gaming why would you pay hundreds more?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I'd imagine it will be a make or break feature for a significant portion of overclock.net, all the more so because it will make or break the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition.
> The 6900K is a fine gaming chip...but the 6700K still does better in the majority of titles that become CPU limited because the number of games that make good use of more than four cores are still few.
> 
> The 6700K is faster clock for clock and can appreciably higher than BW-E (and is clocked significantly higher stock as well).
> Yes, but only because the *7*700K is the best pure gaming CPU.
> I'd take a 5820K or a 6800K over a 6700K any day, if both were priced similarly.
> 
> *looks at sig*
> 
> Actually, it appears I did this very thing on at least two separate days. Of course, I do more than gaming on my systems.


6900k does better in majority of everything else. And the 6900k does great in gaming and does better in a majority of everything else.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> thats what they said about the fx 8 series too. that its 8 cores, it oc's blah blah blah.still got whooped by a locked i5 2400 in gaming. just like this cpu, getting whooped by locked i5's, you can be excitied, im not excited.


Its clocked about 15 % lower then said locked i5 and it performs 1.3% slower. Its also clocked around 10% slower the the 6900k and it performs about 10 % slower in these games on average.

With the sensemi (?) Autoclocking in place you might find in reviews it operates at higher clocks then this. As it is its still impressive if you actually think about it.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Of course you would if they were priced similarly, but if you are only gaming why would you pay hundreds more?


Because more cores sell wether you like or not.
You may understand that 8-cores doesnt offer any better gaming experience, but the average gamer will for sure get a 6 or 8-core from AMD if gaming performance is the same

If AMD can sell a 6-core with the same gaming performance as the 4-core 6700K and with the same price, 9/10 will get the AMD CPU.
Eventually. Because its gonna take some time to stir up the marlet that only know Intel for so many years.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> the 6900k does great in gaming and does better in a majority of everything else.


No one is suggesting otherwise.

As great as the 6900K is for gaming, it's still the wrong choice for a pure gaming setup and would be the wrong choice even if it was priced the same as the 6700K/7700K. The newer architecture at higher clock speeds is better, even with half the cores, in this area, the overwhelming majority of the time.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> No one is suggesting otherwise.
> 
> As great as the 6900K is for gaming, it's still the wrong choice for a pure gaming setup and would be the wrong choice even if it was priced the same as the 6700K/7700K. The newer architecture at higher clock speeds is better, even with half the cores, in this area, the overwhelming majority of the time.


I dont see how it would be the wrong choice if it was priced the same as a 6700k. Losing 1 fps for a way better machine.

What is the average overclock of a 6900k?


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I'd imagine it will be a make or break feature for a *significant portion* of overclock.net, all the more so because it will make or break the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition.


Which I'm sure doesn't make up even 1% of the entire computer market.

AMD being a business would go after the majority of the market.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*


Lol are you serious?

So a 4-core gets 116 fps and the 8-core gets 112 fps. 4 fps at these framerates is within the margin of error of the benching software it's that small. And this is supposed to be the argument that proves a '6700K is a gaming CPU' and a 6850K or other 4+ core CPU is not?! Lol.

Only an idiot would choose the 4-core CPU over a similarly priced 6-core CPU. An idiot.


----------



## Nilareon

I think it's hilarious how all the early leaks are always in foreign languages...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> If AMD can sell a 6-core with the same gaming performance as the 4-core 6700K and with the same price, 9/10 will get the AMD CPU.
> Eventually. Because its gonna take some time to stir up the marlet that only know Intel for so many years.


The second part is the key. AMD has been essentially out of the market for so long Intel has become the default choice (even more than it was before). It is going to take time for that to change, no matter how competitive a 4/6 core Ryzen ends up. It may change faster at the high-end, because (generally speaking) those users are going to be more likely to know the comparative advantages of each, but mainstream buyers are going to be slower to change simply because Intel is the known quantity.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The second part is the key. AMD has been essentially out of the market for so long Intel has become the default choice (even more than it was before). It is going to take time for that to change, no matter how competitive a 4/6 core Ryzen ends up. It may change faster at the high-end, because (generally speaking) those users are going to be more likely to know the comparative advantages of each, but mainstream buyers are going to be slower to change simply because Intel is the known quantity.


Even during the Netbust (yes, Netbust) era I had friends telling me "but Intel's got more jiggahurtz!!!". So yeah sadly mainstream segment penetration will take a long time.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I dont see how it would be the wrong choice if it was priced the same as a 6700k. Losing 1 fps for a way better machine.


The difference, in some scenarios, would be more than a few FPS and "way better machine" is subjective to the use involved.

I haven't had a quad core CPU in a primary system of mine since 2010, and I taking my 5820Ks and 6800Ks over a 6700K were exceedingly obvious choices for me. However, if someone comes up to me and asks what the best possible CPU is when gaming is the only concern, I'm going to say 7700K.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What is the average overclock of a 6900k?


About 4.3-4.4GHz.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Which I'm sure doesn't make up even 1% of the entire computer market.
> 
> AMD being a business would go after the majority of the market.


I've never implied that AMD should go out of their way to cater to minority uses. I just find it odd that people on an overclocking forum are so dismissive of overclocking as it relates to _us_.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> thats what they said about the fx 8 series too. that its 8 cores, it oc's blah blah blah.still got whooped by a locked i5 2400 in gaming. just like this cpu, getting whooped by locked i5's, you can be excitied, im not excited.


Except that this leak shows core-strength improvements that put the AMD processor square in the cenre of Intel's newest processors. It's a completely different scenario to BD/PD. It's also certainly not getting 'whooped', as I'd take that to mean that Ryzen was closer to BD/PD performance than where it sits in those charts... right in the midst of Intel's chips. This is their octa variant as well; I'd be supremely astonished if there are not four and six-core parts with more headroom than the octa. In short, at least so far as these charts are concerned, AMD has created a part equal to its modern Intel equivalent from the HEDT line. How that could possibly be interpreted as failure is beyond my ken.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The second part is the key. AMD has been essentially out of the market for so long Intel has become the default choice (even more than it was before). It is going to take time for that to change, no matter how competitive a 4/6 core Ryzen ends up. It may change faster at the high-end, because (generally speaking) those users are going to be more likely to know the comparative advantages of each, but mainstream buyers are going to be slower to change simply because Intel is the known quantity.


Yep, I agree.

So much change need to happen for Zen to become available like Intel.
From having competitive chips out there for years that it become as natural to pick AMD as Intel.
To notebook OEMs and system builders going for AMD where they mostly picked Intel before with the gaming rigs because AMD bottlenecked the GPUs in those systems.

AMD have one heck of a job ahead of them and I sincerely hope they dont mess up the launch when Zen now finally is revealed.

We all know how much their marketing department have sucked over the years. That is something they need to nail this time


----------



## Blameless

Even the most resistant markets will eventually realize better options, once they've been around long enough.

AMD improving marketing will certainly help, but what's really necessary is to keep capitalizing on and improving parts, so they remain competitive in the long run.


----------



## kd5151

Checking WCCFTech for new news on ryzen. Something must be wrong with me.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Lol are you serious?
> 
> So a 4-core gets 116 fps and the 8-core gets 112 fps. 4 fps at these framerates is within the margin of error of the benching software it's that small. And this is supposed to be the argument that proves a '6700K is a gaming CPU' and a 6850K or other 4+ core CPU is not?! Lol.
> 
> Only an idiot would choose the 4-core CPU over a similarly priced 6-core CPU. An idiot.


That is an average over 8 games. And the 4 core 6700k (let alone 6600k) is priced nowhere near a 6 core.

Why are you mad? If you bought a 6 core chip for encoding, then great. If you bought it exclusively for games, there is no reason to project your anger onto others. Just try again next upgrade cycle.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Semantics aside, if you could walk into a store right now and pick up a 6700K or a 6900K for the same price, there's no way around it, you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to not pick the latter..


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> And the 4 core 6700k (let alone 6600k) is priced nowhere near a 6 core.


The 6700K isn't priced that far off the hex core parts.


----------



## buttface420

okay, you guys talked me into it. when this cpu comes out i will buy it. and if its anything less than amazing im going to trash it soooo bad bros lol


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> and if its anything less than amazing im going to trash it soooo bad bros lol


Is this like that thing were all these people who didn't know what a boycott was went out and bought Starbucks for some reason then took pictures of the coffee cup in the trash and posted them on social media so marginally smarter people could point out that buying stuff you are trying to boycott then giving them free advertising about it is really idiotic?


----------



## buttface420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Is this like that thing were all these people who didn't know what a boycott was went out and bought Starbucks for some reason then took pictures of the coffee cup in the trash and posted them on social media so marginally smarter people could point out that buying stuff you are trying to boycott then give them free advertising is really idiotic?


uhmm no not at all it means that im giving this cpu the benefit of the doubt and if it's not up to par im going to return to this thread to tell everyone they were stupid.......


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> uhmm no not at all it means that im giving this cpu the benefit of the doubt and if it's not up to par im going to return to this thread to tell everyone they were stupid.......


After they convinced you to buy it?

Not that I think you really have anything to worry about.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> okay, you guys talked me into it. when this cpu comes out i will buy it. and if its anything less than amazing im going to trash it soooo bad bros lol


If you only want to game on it, an 8 core Ryzen isnt going to get you much of an improvement from a 4790k. If anything noticeable at all.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Semantics aside, if you could walk into a store right now and pick up a 6700K or a 6900K for the same price, there's no way around it, you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to not pick the latter..


While I agree , some people look at platform cost and the ability to reach maximum clocks


----------



## TheReciever

For me I am looking at this as the alternative option to a 2x e5 2670 setup as it would mean I could possibly downsize to matx as opposed to atx. Probably have less multithread performance but with overclocking it may be able to mitigate the offset between the two.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> For me I am looking at this as the alternative option to a 2x e5 2670 setup as it would mean I could possibly downsize to matx as opposed to atx. Probably have less multithread performance but with overclocking it may be able to mitigate the offset between the two.


Are those 2670s locked?


----------



## soth7676

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Are those 2670s locked?


sounds like Xeon CPUs to me...so yes...very locked


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soth7676*
> 
> sounds like Xeon CPUs to me...so yes...very locked


There are a few unlocked Xeon E5 SKUs, I'm just not sure if any of the E5 2000s were unlocked.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

E5 2000s are locked.


----------



## verovdp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> There are a few unlocked Xeon E5 SKUs, I'm just not sure if any of the E5 2000s were unlocked.


E5 2xxx series are all hard locked, save for the 0-10 MHz that you get pushing the BCLK.


----------



## verovdp

At this point it would be great if we knew more about the motherboards that are going to be made for the X370 platform, as I would imagine that that could make or break a move onto the Zen platform for a lot of people. CES and January can't get here soon enough!


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> If you only want to game on it, an 8 core Ryzen isnt going to get you much of an improvement from a 4790k. If anything noticeable at all.


For some people such as myself, having the extra power on tap is always preferable. I mean even though I use my rig for gaming 90% of the time, that 10% when I need to do encoding or other CPU intensive stuff, I'm very thankful I have a 4930K instead of a 4790K.

So if this 8 core Ryzen can overclock to around 4.5GHz and has Haswell IPC, I think I'm sold.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> The difference, in some scenarios, would be more than a few FPS and "way better machine" is subjective to the use involved.
> 
> I haven't had a quad core CPU in a primary system of mine since 2010, and I taking my 5820Ks and 6800Ks over a 6700K were exceedingly obvious choices for me. However, if someone comes up to me and asks what the best possible CPU is when gaming is the only concern, I'm going to say 7700K.
> About 4.3-4.4GHz.
> I've never implied that AMD should go out of their way to cater to minority uses. I just find it odd that people on an overclocking forum are so dismissive of overclocking as it relates to _us_.


The system with the 6900k will be a way better machine capable of way higher computational power. There is no way you can twist it to say the 6700k would be better. Maybe ram benchamrks and power consumption? Lol

As for overclocking, 4.5ghz is decent. Hopefully Zen can match that without too much problem.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Are those 2670s locked?


Yes those CPU's are locked

Im looking for more multithreaded workloads like streaming/recording and maybe video editing. Starting to get into that sort of stuff.

From what I understand, Premier Pro drops off after 10 threads so 2x 2670 is a bit wasted on that but its not to say it cant do other things in the mean time. That being said, if I can step down to a 1 CPU setup to get a smaller footprint, then Im willing to give AMD my money for that. Pending pricing of course.

The 2670's arent as cheap here in Korea than they were in ebay/USA. But still would be pretty fun to play with regardless.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> For some people such as myself, having the extra power on tap is always preferable. I mean even though I use my rig for gaming 90% of the time, that 10% when I need to do encoding or other CPU intensive stuff, I'm very thankful I have a 4930K instead of a 4790K.
> 
> So if this 8 core Ryzen can overclock to around 4.5GHz and has Haswell IPC, I think I'm sold.


I agree, especially if the IPC and difference in achievable clockspeeds are quite minimal.

In the context of the conversation that was going on with the other guy, I think it needed to be said though







.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> E5 2000s are locked.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verovdp*
> 
> E5 2xxx series are all hard locked, save for the 0-10 MHz that you get pushing the BCLK.


Thanks for the clarification.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> There is no way you can twist it to say the 6700k would be better.


There is no twist involved in saying a 6700K is faster in lightly threaded tasks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Im looking for more multithreaded workloads like streaming/recording and maybe video editing. Starting to get into that sort of stuff.
> 
> From what I understand, Premier Pro drops off after 10 threads so 2x 2670 is a bit wasted on that but its not to say it cant do other things in the mean time. That being said, if I can step down to a 1 CPU setup to get a smaller footprint, then Im willing to give AMD my money for that. Pending pricing of course.
> 
> The 2670's arent as cheap here in Korea than they were in ebay/USA. But still would be pretty fun to play with regardless.


A big part of streaming/recording and video editing is the transcoding, which will scale well essentially as far as you care to take it. I'm not terribly familiar with Premier Pro, but if it uses any major non-proprietary software encoders, the transcoding will easily make use of 32+ logical CPUs. However, the rest of Premier Pro may not.

I'd be inclined to go the Zen route over a 2P E5 2670 setup, especially if you can't get the 2670s cheap. The E5s would be faster in very well threaded loads, but an eight-core Zen will certainly be more well rounded, and no slouch in video work.


----------



## Dragonsyph

In what world would a 4 core and 6 core cpu be the same price(high end)? Do you have to handicap the question so bad and then give a choice of which cpu would you pick?

Clearly, in that fictional world, everyone would choose a 6 core. But in the real world when its just a gaming rig saving couple hundred dollars for a 4 core is perfectly logical. Clearly, a higher overclocking cpu (6700k/7700k) will do better in just about every game.

And intel quick sync which is actual hardware in the cpu's that include igpu do a great job at steaming etc.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I'd imagine it will be a make or break feature for a significant portion of overclock.net, all the more so because it will make or break the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition.


I disagree. I think the whole platform is what is important to a significant portion of overclock.net, which will in turn be a bigger factor in the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition. Kyle Bennet at [H] is one who agrees with that sentiment as he says "does nothing directly for the bottom line".

[edit] corrected quote


----------



## 12Cores

I hope they are brave enough to release a version of the 8/16 chip for $399, that would really shake up the cpu industry for sure.


----------



## CrazyElf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> There are a few unlocked Xeon E5 SKUs, I'm just not sure if any of the E5 2000s were unlocked.


All of the E5 2000 series has always been locked.

Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell Sandy Bridge 1600s were mostly unlocked. You'd have to research SKU by SKU before buying to be sure, but many if not most seem to be unlocked.

The Broadwell 1600s (ex 16XX v4) have all been locked. I think from this we can conclude that the 16XX v5 (Skylake Xeons) will be locked too. The mainstream Xeon X170 is also locked.

SkyOC won't save you either. The non-K CPUs throttle:
http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3307_non_k_skylake_overclocking_hurts_avx2_performance_problem_related_to_256_bit_vector_warm_up_%28hardware.fr%29/

I'd be prepared to bet that the Xeons also throttle.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> I disagree. I think the whole platform is what is important to a significant portion of overclock.net, which will in turn be a bigger factor in the price vs. performance ratio vs. the likely competition. Kyle Bennet at [H] is one who agrees with that sentiment as he says "overclocking doesn't sell processors".


What could possibly be so much better about AM4 + X370 that it would make up for a hypothetical inability to overclock (for those willing to overclock) vs. 2011-v3/X99?

As for Kyle Bennet...he's only right in context of AMD's bottom line, which is even more irrelevant to the purchase decisions of end users than overclocking is to AMD's sales.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> There is no twist involved in saying a 6700K is faster in lightly threaded tasks.
> A big part of streaming/recording and video editing is the transcoding, which will scale well essentially as far as you care to take it. I'm not terribly familiar with Premier Pro, but if it uses any major non-proprietary software encoders, the transcoding will easily make use of 32+ logical CPUs. However, the rest of Premier Pro may not.
> 
> I'd be inclined to go the Zen route over a 2P E5 2670 setup, especially if you can't get the 2670s cheap. The E5s would be faster in very well threaded loads, but an eight-core Zen will certainly be more well rounded, and no slouch in video work.


Yep, which is why I have my interest directed towards that solution.

As far as Premier Pro, Ive been reading that efficiency drops to 0% after 10 threads and as a result the 6700k smokes the 2x 2670. I dont dabble with that application yet but I may in the future. With that being said however, I do plan for other uses beyond premier pro (like streaming/recording) that could make use of the available threads. Regardless though, a single CPU setup would be nice. Dont need to buy an extra cpu, cooling, and might be able to downsize to Matx. AMD was pretty bad about SFF genre, so it depends on the offerings in the future...


----------



## mutantmagnet

I'm really looking forward to Ryzen now.

Intel has been pretty annoying by not offering unlocked cpus that support VTd.

AMD doesn't segment features like that.

Intel had also been annoying with their pricing scheme post Haswell.

Since performance isn't going to be worse as I originally thought AMD will prove themselves close to Intel by being the smaller company they will undercut Intel. Trending towards lower launch prices a little bit helps after the stagnation seen in broadwell and skylake.

What I really like is innovation in features people like us can appreciate.

Ryzen boost clock scaling with different cooling performance is a very cool feature that makes upgrading to higher end cooling more cost effective.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> What could possibly be so much better about AM4 + X370 that it would make up for a hypothetical inability to overclock (for those willing to overclock) vs. 2011-v3/X99?
> 
> As for Kyle Bennet...he's only right in context of AMD's bottom line, which is even more irrelevant to the purchase decisions of end users than overclocking is to AMD's sales.


A platform doesn't consist of a AM4 + X370 in isolation. AMD has a complete gaming ecosystem to offer gamers. If you think i'm underestimating the effect overclocking will have on purchase decisions, i'll submit that you are underestimating the effect a complete gaming ecosystem can have and what opportunity AMD has to capitalize on it with a high end CPU and high end GPU in their war chest. I suppose that is why rumors are suggesting intel will begin to offer intel optimized content in a couple games.

As for Kyle's comment, your rebuttal isn't clear.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> A platform doesn't consist of a AM4 + X370 in isolation. AMD has a complete gaming ecosystem to offer gamers. If you think i'm underestimating the effect overclocking will have on purchase decisions, i'll submit that you are underestimating the effect a complete gaming ecosystem can have and what opportunity AMD has to capitalize on it with a high end CPU and high end GPU in their war chest. I suppose that is why rumors are suggesting intel will begin to offer intel optimized content in a couple games.
> 
> As for Kyle's comment, your rebuttal isn't clear.


I don't think anyone who isn't a brand loyalist gives a toss about "gaming ecosystems".

My rebuttal isn't to Kyle's comments, but to the context they are being applied to. AMD cares about selling products. Consumers care about buying them. Fans care about brands and ecosystems. Most overclockers care about performance and value (or at least used to).

My decision to buy Ryzen or not comes down to the performance I can achieve in what I do vs. cost and how it compares to other viable options...curiosity also enters into the equation, but not to the degree that it would override the value I can extract. I don't care about brand. I don't care about stock performance. I had never considered a "gaming ecosystem" and it's not going to factor into my purchase decision at all.

If I see a Ryzen 8c/16t part that runs at 3.4-3.7GHz, but can't OC, that's going to be a big hit to it's value, because it's only going to tie the least expensive Intel hex cores in parallel performance and will fall a solid 30% behind on stuff that can't effectively utilize more than six cores. Even if this didn't result in performance below my cut off, it would have to be priced almost unbelievably low for me to buy it or to recommend to anyone who even seemed vaguely willing to OC.

Now, I expect Ryzen to be able to OC, and I certainly hope it OCs well (no consumer has anything to gain from Ryzen not doing well, existing parts aren't going to get any slower if Ryzen out does them), but the specifics of this are the most significant missing piece of the Ryzen puzzle and they will make or break it's value to those who value the performance they can achieve above other considerations.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I don't think anyone who isn't a brand loyalist gives a toss about "gaming ecosystems".
> 
> My rebuttal isn't to Kyle's comments, but to the context they are being applied to. AMD cares about selling products. Consumers care about buying them. Fans care about brands and ecosystems. Most overclockers care about performance and value (or at least used to).
> 
> My decision to buy Ryzen or not comes down to the performance I can achieve in what I do vs. cost and how it compares to other viable options...curiosity also enters into the equation, but not to the degree that it would override the value I can extract. I don't care about brand. I don't care about stock performance. I had never considered a "gaming ecosystem" and it's not going to factor into my purchase decision at all.
> 
> If I see a Ryzen 8c/16t part that runs at 3.4-3.7GHz, but can't OC, that's going to be a big hit to it's value, because it's only going to tie the least expensive Intel hex cores in parallel performance and will fall a solid 30% behind on stuff that can't effectively utilize more than six cores. Even if this didn't result in performance below my cut off, it would have to be priced almost unbelievably low for me to buy it or to recommend to anyone who even seemed vaguely willing to OC.
> 
> Now, I expect Ryzen to be able to OC, and I certainly hope it OCs well (no consumer has anything to gain from Ryzen not doing well, existing parts aren't going to get any slower if Ryzen out does them), but the specifics of this are the most significant missing piece of the Ryzen puzzle and they will make or break it's value to those who value the performance they can achieve above other considerations.


OK, well it's difficult to determine whether you are speaking for the entire gaming community, or your own personal needs. In one post you talk about your needs, in the next you talk about the lions share of users on overclock.net. If you are speaking about your own needs, then fine that's what you need or want and there's nothing to debate. If you are speaking for the needs of the entire gaming community then i can debate that all night long. So in that case, i do think having a full gaming ecosystem with hardware and software to integrate is a tangible advantage. Price being one of them, and game optimizations another (keeping in mind their dominance in consoles). I won't argue that overclocking will be completely irrelevant to all gamers, but i believe having a complete ecosystem with which to optimize around will be a far bigger advantage.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> The AMD chips will have to be very inexpensive to compete at a price/performance level. However, they have to pay off R&D.
> 
> Intel has come down on pricing:
> 
> 6700k is $279
> 6800k is $339
> 6850k is $529


*citation needed. The $279.99 price is the micro center walk in price, not the internet prince. the internet price is still $350.


----------



## SuperZan

The majority of people buy based off of brand recognition, followed by price/performance. In the former, Intel has an obvious advantage with the average consumer. However, Ryzen has the potential to offer exceptional price/performance. Looking at it just in terms of gamers, for example... for gamers who don't OC, this will mean 4/8 or 6/12 chips that offer higher-than-3.4GHz base clocks and decent Turbo along with motherboards with an acceptable amount of PCIe lanes and good connectivity options for peripherals. For gamers who OC, same holds true but add OC capability to at least something like 4.2GHz, and preferably more than that. I don't think ecosystems will matter, but I'm sure that OC-capability will as many PC gamers are at least above-average in their 'Enthusiast Quotient', in that they probably don't geek over hardware as much as a HWBOT weekend warrior but they follow hardware news on sites like OCN and have a decent grasp of OC basics.

The 'big dog' Ryzen chips will need strong tech cred, which includes OC headroom, to sell well with enthusiasts, streamers, and other tech fans. Gamers who like to buy more than budget rigs will consider the reviews and recommendations of those people in their purchases. Those who buy budget systems will probably be more interested in the Zen APU's. In any event, I don't think a gaming ecosystem will be a deciding factor.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> OK, well it's difficult to determine whether you are speaking for the entire gaming community, or your own personal needs.


In this particular exchange we've been having, I'm mostly talking about the subset of consumers willing to overclock. I am in this group. Some people in this group are gamers, but that's not something I automatically associate overclocking with.

I am specifically excluding companies themselves, and anyone who favors fluff or factionalism over substance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> So in that case, i do think having a full gaming ecosystem with hardware and software to integrate is a tangible advantage.


I am extremely skeptical of this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Price being one of them


Best price/value has never been served by limiting one's self to a single brand/ecosystem. A collection of parts, individually selected for ones needs is always going to be better than adhering to any brand based rule. There are some prerequisites, of course, but by and large, a collection of the parts that are individually best will make the best system. I'm not going to automatically buy an AMD GPU just because I have an AMD CPU, or vice versa. I'm going to get the best GPU and CPU for my needs and use them together, no matter who makes them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> and game optimizations another (keeping in mind their dominance in consoles)


Even if I have a game that favors one brand's architectures over another, the rest of the system doesn't do much of anything to change that, at least not directly. Indirectly, there have been some interesting (and ironic combinations)...I put my NVIDIA GPUs in my FX systems because AMD's GPU driver overhead made it far more sensible to pair my Tahit and Hawaii parts with Intel CPUs. The driver overhead was largey a moot point with an OCed i7, but it was a significant problem for my Bulldozer and Vishera parts.

Again, with a few notable exceptions, it's rare for titles to favor one GPU side over the other heavily enough to trump basic, average, value assessments. Likewise, only a tiny handful of games have ever been substantial biased toward anything other than actual performance on the CPU side of things. I don't see this changing any time soon.


----------



## dragneel

I don't know what some people are talking about, I'm not the sharpest but those numbers look pretty good to me.
As far as I can tell, that looks almost on par with the 6900k.. thinking the 6 core chip could potentially be my Sandy replacement depending on price I suppose.

Wasn't long ago we were all expecting roughly haswell performance and people were okay with that, now we're seeing what looks like a solid skylake competitor that's bad?


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I am extremely skeptical of this.


I believe Vega, Ryzen and AM4/X370 are going to make a lot of people want to get on the platform so we'll see what happens. I think it's also important to note that 2017 will be the year of multithreading and low level APIs with 15 DX12 titles due for release and surely additional Vulkan based games.

Quote:


> Best price/value has never been served by limiting one's self to a single brand/ecosystem.


Indeed. Which is another reason why AMD's open ecosystem is disruptive.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dragneel*
> 
> I don't know what some people are talking about, I'm not the sharpest but those numbers look pretty good to me.
> As far as I can tell, that looks almost on par with the 6900k.. thinking the 6 core chip could potentially be my Sandy replacement depending on price I suppose.
> 
> Wasn't long ago we were all expecting roughly haswell performance and people were okay with that, now we're seeing what looks like a solid skylake competitor that's bad?


Haha yeah it's funny. These are great results, possibilities are almost endless now that AMD has a high performance X86 core. Im really looking forward to see Ryzen/Naples together with the Radeon Pro SSG.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> I hope they are brave enough to release a version of the 8/16 chip for $399, that would really shake up the cpu industry for sure.


Assuming the 8c/16t variant has Haswell IPC and can overclock to 4.5GHz +/- 100MHz, I think I'm willing to shell out up to $650 for it. No I'm not a fanboy, and yes AMD does deserve to turn profits if they release an actually competitive product that's priced sensibly.

Back to your point though, $399 would be an absolutely terrible idea. Intel could afford to pretty much give away their 6900Ks for free and they'd still turn massive profits from the Xeons they sell. AMD waging a price war against Intel will only result in their own demise in the long run.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> I believe Vega, Ryzen and AM4/X370 are going to make a lot of people want to get on the platform so we'll see what happens. I think it's also important to note that 2017 will be the year of multithreading and low level APIs with 15 DX12 titles due for release and surely additional Vulkan based games.


There is no advantage to be gained from running an all AMD system, so I really don't see what benefit you think there will be in a "gaming ecosystem". People have mix/matched Intel/AMD/Nvidia for years and I don't see any reason why that would change going forward. Having a competitive product at an attractive price is what is going to get people to buy a Ryzen CPU, not some perceived platform synergy.

As for 2017 being the year of DX12, that's what people were saying about 2016 this time last year (and about Mantle the year before that).


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nilareon*
> 
> I think it's hilarious how all the early leaks are always in foreign languages...


Are you aware that English is not the most commonly spoken language in the world? It's actually 2nd to 4th ranked in the world by the amount of speakers (depending on the ist and how they count).


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Are you aware that English is not the most commonly spoken language in the world? It's actually 2nd to 4th ranked in the world by the amount of speakers (depending on the ist and how they count).


I think it's the most popular as a second language though, and de facto IT world language.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I think it's the most popular as a second language though, and de facto IT world language.


Yes, probably true. Although the point I was trying to make was that there is a lot of people in the world that are economically well enough to be reading about this kind of stuff who speak some other language than English. His comment sort of sounded like that English is the only REAL language in the world and why the hell these leaks "always" happen in some other language. Because majority of people in the world do speak some other language than English would be my wild guess.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> As for 2017 being the year of DX12, that's what people were saying about 2016 this time last year (and about Mantle the year before that).


They were saying games developed exclusively for DX12 would be arriving in 2016? I dont remember anybody saying that. I might have missed it but im pretty sure purpose built Vulkan and DX12 games were always scheduled for 2017, which makes sense because there wouldnt be enough development time for anything earlier.
There's no denying the benefits of these APIs theyve shown excellent performance improvements in many cases even in the current form of being integrated into existing code. Developers have been using similar low level APIs on 8 core consoles for a long time.


----------



## Raghar

I think releasing a large title for DX12 is economic suicide. Vulcan works even for W7, or Linux. And developers are less likely to lock themselves into one platform. Considering a lot of games are released on consoles as well, developers can't program exclusively for DX12.

Anyway, games doesn't have only graphics, and using all cores for graphics basically defeats reason to have multiple cores.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I think releasing a large title for DX12 is economic suicide. Vulcan works even for W7, or Linux. And developers are less likely to lock themselves into one platform. Considering a lot of games are released on consoles as well, developers can't program exclusively for DX12.
> 
> Anyway, games doesn't have only graphics, and using all cores for graphics basically defeats reason to have multiple cores.


Only games that would be releasing *exclusively* for DX 12 would be the ones paid for by the Microsoft. Like they tried with HALO on PC when DX 10 was not really taking off because it was exclusive api for vista and Vista happened to be a bit ... crap at the time.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I think releasing a large title for DX12 is economic suicide. Vulcan works even for W7, or Linux. And developers are less likely to lock themselves into one platform. Considering a lot of games are released on consoles as well, developers can't program exclusively for DX12.
> 
> Anyway, games doesn't have only graphics, and using all cores for graphics basically defeats reason to have multiple cores.


Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.
Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?
How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan? What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?
For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.

Moving to just DX12, isn't gong to happen when half the gamers are still stuck at W7/W8.
Making a version to DX12 alongside DX11, might be more beneficial to those who also make their game available on xbox one to get that extra bit of performance from xbox.

I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.
> Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?
> How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan? What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?
> For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
> Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.
> 
> I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


There has been comments from devs.

Iirc, one said simply porting over to Vulkan from DX11 gave an immediate 30% improvement to performance.


----------



## warr10r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.


Vulkan is better than DX12 in every way possible. Far better performance than both OpenGL and DX11. And its OS agnostic, so one day it will run on your phone as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?


Yes. Far better. Also, it runs on Linux natively.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan?


No more easier/difficult than learning DX12.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?


Pick an engine, any engine. UnrealEngine 4, CryEngine, Unity. Just about all major ones, I'd say.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
> Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.


Um, no it really isn't the same performance than DX11, its better. Some games will support both DX12 and Vulkan as they are apparently pretty similar APIs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to just DX12, isn't gong to happen when half the gamers are still stuck at W7/W8.


Yet Vulkan can run on Windows 7 and 8/8.1. One API rather than multiple? No-brainer!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Making a version to DX12 alongside DX11, might be more beneficial to those who also make their game available on xbox one to get that extra bit of performance from xbox.


This is literally the only place that it makes sense to use DX12.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


I'm betting that game will be Star Citizen, but we are still a long way off for DX12 and Vulkan support.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.
> Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?
> How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan? What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?
> For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
> Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.
> 
> Moving to just DX12, isn't gong to happen when half the gamers are still stuck at W7/W8.
> Making a version to DX12 alongside DX11, might be more beneficial to those who also make their game available on xbox one to get that extra bit of performance from xbox.
> 
> *I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11*, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


Can you show me a game that shows DX11 is better than its DX9 or OpenGL version in terms of CPU side improvements ?
The point is, you don't have to wait for a game that supports both Vulkan and DX11, to know the _efficiency_ of Vulkan. You can check it by yourself, run any of the Vulkan and DX11 games on a 1.0-2.0 GHz CPU and compare the frame rates and smoothness of both API. I bet you will see that Vulkan games run at groundbreaking smoothness than the all the DX11 ones.
And since (wiki) "Vulkan is derived from and built upon components of AMD's Mantle API", you can obviously sense the power of Vulkan by running any of the Mantle games as well. Support for Vulkan is also being provided by ARM, Qualcomm and PowerVR mobile GPUs. This is where the CPU side improvements of Vulkan shines,i.e, Laptops and Mobile phones that have low frequency CPU cores.

Here is Mantle vs DX11 example.

Core i3-4150 @ 0.8 GHz.

[Sniper Elite III DirectX 11]
Average FPS: 30.3
Minimum FPS: 5.0
Maximum FPS: 84.4

Number Of Frames: *2355* (stuttering like hell)
Average Frame: 32.997ms
Minimum Frame: 11.842ms
Maximum Frame: 200.000ms

[Sniper Elite III Mantle:]
Average FPS: 55.4
Minimum FPS: 11.9
Maximum FPS: 99.7

Number Of Frames: 4218 (compare this with number of frames skipped on DX11)
Average Frame: 18.052ms
Minimum Frame: 10.035ms
Maximum Frame: 84.152ms

*I challenge you show me a single DX11 game that runs on ultra graphics settings and gives near 60 fps average on a 800 MHz Dual Core CPU.*


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Only games that would be releasing *exclusively* for DX 12 would be the ones paid for by the Microsoft. Like they tried with HALO on PC when DX 10 was not really taking off because it was exclusive api for vista and Vista happened to be a bit ... crap at the time.


Halo 2 didn't use DX10 it was 100% DX9 i had it running on windows xp back in the day.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Halo 2 didn't use DX10 it was 100% DX9 i had it running on windows xp back in the day.


XP also had an exploit to run DX10 though...


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> XP also had an exploit to run DX10 though...


No one was ever able to run DX10 on XP with any significant success.


----------



## sugarhell

On the latest Unity beta my projects got a boost on cpu performance by around 30 -50 % with Vulkan.

That's not bad at all for a beta implementation.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> There has been comments from devs.
> 
> Iirc, one said simply porting over to Vulkan from DX11 gave an immediate 30% improvement to performance.


Do you have any links? I'm guessing the rest of that example was "in certain CPU limited situations" or something similar. I've never seen any claim that Vulkan is 30% faster across the board.


----------



## ColdRush

Even if the game benchmarks are cherry picked this is still looking to be a winner if they can nail the price (which they tend to do). Come on AMD give me a reason to go full red in my next upgrade cycle


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.
> Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?
> How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan? What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?
> For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
> Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.
> 
> Moving to just DX12, isn't gong to happen when half the gamers are still stuck at W7/W8.
> Making a version to DX12 alongside DX11, might be more beneficial to those who also make their game available on xbox one to get that extra bit of performance from xbox.
> 
> I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


I was under the impression that everyone knew Vulkan was better than dx11 and 12


----------



## black96ws6

I don't see DX12 being relevant for a long, LONG time.

DX12 only runs on Windows 10.

A lot of people don't like or use Windows 10 for a variety of reasons, including privacy and forced updates.

A Windows game using only DX12 and not DX11, as mentioned previously, would be economic suicide as you're cutting out a substantial market base.

And since there's no difference graphically between the two, along with the fact that you have to have good developers so the implementation is not spotty, I think DX11 will stick around a lot longer than prior DX refreshes.


----------



## soth7676

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> I don't see DX12 being relevant for a long, LONG time.
> 
> DX12 only runs on Windows 10.
> 
> A lot of people don't like or use Windows 10 for a variety of reasons, including privacy and forced updates.
> 
> A Windows game using only DX12 and not DX11, as mentioned previously, would be economic suicide as you're cutting out a substantial market base.
> 
> And since there's no difference graphically between the two, along with the fact that you have to have good developers so the implementation is not spotty, I think DX11 will stick around a lot longer than prior DX refreshes.


That is unless M$ pays developers to make a game DX12 exclusive hoping to lure people to Winspy 10


----------



## dagget3450

Pc gaming is devolving with DX12 and probably Vulkan as well. 1 gpu only, quad core good until 2050, widescreen/high refresh rate/multi monitor support nope. Pretty much now just a console platform these days.

At least we have Intel/Nvidia/Microsoft pushing the envelope of innovation. Nvidia excels at efficiency and faster FPS. While intel increases single thread IPC, and Microsoft slows it all down with dx12. While making it even harder for Devs/lazy devs/publishers to include pc gaming features by locking it down in windows store.

Good thing Dx11 is far superior thanks to Nvidia that dx12 and Vulkan are totally useless. Not even sure why AMD is even bothering anymore, they are looking at 8k gaming and blah blah blah.

6700k/nvidia gpu for LIFE!!! Zen is so slow just look at the leaked engineering samples.

/s


----------



## nakano2k1

As much as I like the top of the mountain CPU, i'm more interested in how the rest of the product stack is going to fan out and perform. Even moreover, what the mobile cpu stacks will look like. That's a HUGE area in which AMD need to make a resurgence.

So yeah... I know the halo effect rules supreme amongst many in the "enthusiast" community, but how the rest of the cpus pan out price to performance wise is going to be the telling story.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> As much as I like the top of the mountain CPU, im more interested in what the rest of the product stack is going to fan out and perform. Even moreover, what the mobile cpu stacks will look like. Thats a HUGE area in which AMD need to make a resurgance.
> 
> So yeah... I know the halo effect rules supreme amongst many in the "enthusiast" community, but how the rest of the cpus pan out price to performance wise is going to be the telling story.


This. Hopefully the 6c/12t clocks well and is at or lower than i7 price. I'll finally have a reason to replace my 2500k.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.
> Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?
> How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan? What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?
> For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
> Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.
> 
> Moving to just DX12, isn't gong to happen when half the gamers are still stuck at W7/W8.
> Making a version to DX12 alongside DX11, might be more beneficial to those who also make their game available on xbox one to get that extra bit of performance from xbox.
> 
> I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


I was under the impression that everyone knew Vulkan was better than dx11 and 12
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> As much as I like the top of the mountain CPU, im more interested in what the rest of the product stack is going to fan out and perform. Even moreover, what the mobile cpu stacks will look like. Thats a HUGE area in which AMD need to make a resurgance.
> 
> So yeah... I know the halo effect rules supreme amongst many in the "enthusiast" community, but how the rest of the cpus pan out price to performance wise is going to be the telling story.


Hopefully the 6c can be put into a laptop.


----------



## Marios145

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Pc gaming is devolving with DX12 and probably Vulkan as well. 1 gpu only, quad core good until 2050, widescreen/high refresh rate/multi monitor support nope. Pretty much now just a console platform these days.
> 
> At least we have Intel/Nvidia/Microsoft pushing the envelope of innovation. Nvidia excels at efficiency and faster FPS. While intel increases single thread IPC, and Microsoft slows it all down with dx12. While making it even harder for Devs/lazy devs/publishers to include pc gaming features by locking it down in windows store.
> 
> Good thing Dx11 is far superior thanks to Nvidia that dx12 and Vulkan are totally useless. Not even sure why AMD is even bothering anymore, they are looking at 8k gaming and blah blah blah.
> 
> 6700k/nvidia gpu for LIFE!!! Zen is so slow just look at the leaked engineering samples.
> 
> /s


This sums up every amd discussion these days.


----------



## Asisvenia

To be honest I wasn't satisfied when I saw leaked benchmarks. Especially, for the gaming I thought i5 6600K can be easily beaten up by Ryzen but it didn't happen like that.

Nevertheless, these are not official benchmarks we should wait for the absolute true ones which will be released by Amd.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> To be honest I wasn't satisfied when I saw leaked benchmarks. Especially, for the gaming I thought i5 6600K can be easily beaten up by Ryzen but it didn't happen like that.
> 
> Nevertheless, these are not official benchmarks we should wait for the absolute true ones which will be released by Amd.


A low clocked 8c16th cpu isn't to be compared to a 4c cpu with the same thermal limit. A 4c Zen with the same thermal limit should be compared to the 6600k. Let's use reason and logic when looking at "leaks".


----------



## Asisvenia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Pc gaming is devolving with DX12 and probably Vulkan as well. 1 gpu only, quad core good until 2050, widescreen/high refresh rate/multi monitor support nope. Pretty much now just a console platform these days.
> 
> At least we have Intel/Nvidia/Microsoft pushing the envelope of innovation. Nvidia excels at efficiency and faster FPS. While intel increases single thread IPC, and Microsoft slows it all down with dx12. While making it even harder for Devs/lazy devs/publishers to include pc gaming features by locking it down in windows store.
> 
> Good thing Dx11 is far superior thanks to Nvidia that dx12 and Vulkan are totally useless. Not even sure why AMD is even bothering anymore, they are looking at 8k gaming and blah blah blah.
> 
> 6700k/nvidia gpu for LIFE!!! Zen is so slow just look at the leaked engineering samples.
> 
> /s


I agree with you about DX11. Because for the DX11 Nvidia did really successful things in 2010 and today NV is king of DX11. Because their Fermi architecture designed with efficient ''*Polymorph Engine*'' which was developed for the DX11 and Tessellation. I remember in these days HD5000 series gpus were having bad time..

And they used advanced version of PolyMorph Engine on the Maxwell also today it still has been using on Pascal. That's why Nvidia generally leading on DX11 titles.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> To be honest I wasn't satisfied when I saw leaked benchmarks. Especially, for the gaming I thought i5 6600K can be easily beaten up by Ryzen but it didn't happen like that.
> 
> Nevertheless, these are not official benchmarks we should wait for the absolute true ones which will be released by Amd.


Not surprising at all, considering this ES has a clock deficiency vs the Intel parts and final Ryzen, and the games tested there scale poorly with threads, instead wanting IPC + clock speeds on 2-4 cores.

6900K looses to a 6700K there for that reason.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> I agree with you about DX11. Because for the DX11 Nvidia did really successful things in 2010 and today NV is king of DX11. Because their Fermi architecture designed with efficient ''*Polymorph Engine*'' which was developed for the DX11 and Tessellation. I remember in these days HD5000 series gpus were having bad time..
> 
> And they used advanced version of PolyMorph Engine on the Maxwell also today it still has been using on Pascal. That's why Nvidia generally leading on DX11 titles.


Totally Agree ! Here is one of the many examples of Nvidia's *Polymorph Engine*. Awesome DX11 graphics with >30% more fps than AMD garbage.











Spoiler: Nvidia's Advanced 64-bit color format dedicated for deeper view distance














Spoiler: Nvidia DX11 Polymorph Engine



Talented Engineers of *Nvidia Polymorph Engine* Interview.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> I agree with you about DX11. Because for the DX11 Nvidia did really successful things in 2010 and today NV is king of DX11. Because their Fermi architecture designed with efficient ''*Polymorph Engine*'' which was developed for the DX11 and Tessellation. I remember in these days HD5000 series gpus were having bad time..
> 
> And they used advanced version of PolyMorph Engine on the Maxwell also today it still has been using on Pascal. That's why Nvidia generally leading on DX11 titles.


You missed the /s.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Moving to vulcan will require good reasons.
> Is vulcan better than DX11 which is already supported in both W7/8/10?
> How long will it take to learn and move to vulkan? What game engine is being used and does it fully support vulkan seamlessly, or it requires a lot of learning?
> For a studio, spending several months for their developers to learn vulkan and all its niks and naks and fully utilise it to its best potential, might be too long compared to just developing on the same engine in DX11.
> Also basing on the "Initial" benchmark, DX11 is far better performer than vulkan. So moving to vulkan might be a very very bold move just for the sake of not using DX12.
> 
> Moving to just DX12, isn't gong to happen when half the gamers are still stuck at W7/W8.
> Making a version to DX12 alongside DX11, might be more beneficial to those who also make their game available on xbox one to get that extra bit of performance from xbox.
> 
> I still hadn't seen a confirmation that vulkan is better than DX11, let alone DX12, in the overall sense for games. Some game engines support all of them, but do we have a game which gives you both DX11 and vulkan and you can see what is better in both IQ and performance?


Vulkan is better then DX11 in the same way DX12 is, I E low level API, but also comes with the benefit of not being tied to microsoft's OS.

As for engine support, both unreal engine 4 and unity support vulkan. Cryengine is a bit DOA right now. Both source 2 and serious engine support vulkan. IdTech 6 supports vulkan. So engine support isnt a big issue here.

As you said though, developers are used to DirectX. They already know how to use it, tools for it are far more mature, and the other benefits of the DirectX API over openGL still apply, mainly integration of control for other APIs for input.

Vulkan wont replace direct X, unless the year of linux actually happens. Which wont happen.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Totally Agree ! Here is one of the many examples of Nvidia's *Polymorph Engine*. Awesome DX11 graphics with >30% more fps than AMD garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Nvidia's Advanced 64-bit color format dedicated for deeper view distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Nvidia DX11 Polymorph Engine
> 
> 
> 
> Talented Engineers of *Nvidia Polymorph Engine* Interview.


That's already been debunked. Not sure why people still bring that picture up.

Not to mention the guy who made the video has even stated:
Quote:


> The initial video I did was full of errors and mistakes and none of them were intentional.


Quote:


> As others have not replicated my problem and shown proof, I am happy to say it is a fault at my end.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> XP also had an exploit to run DX10 though...


doesn't matter. The game used DX9 i was just playing it earlier it was for sure DX9.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> That's already been debunked paid . Not sure why people still bring that picture up.
> 
> Not to mention the guy who made the video has even stated:


FTFY, i have seen how advance it is first hand. from 560ti-670-970-980ti. always "The way it's meant to be

"







, i won't lie tho, nvidia really nailed 3d with their 3d vision. it was and still miles ahead of anything amd did for 3d. just plug and play and enjoy 3d pron games and movies







.


----------



## bmgjet

*reads this thread to see if any links to more official benchmarks are posted, And all I find is 30 pages of people going on about how intel and nvidia are better*


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> doesn't matter. The game used DX9 i was just playing it earlier it was for sure DX9.


Yep, a quick search reveals this has been known since 2007 or so.

In fact after a short it actually played worse on Vista than playing on XP


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> XP also had an exploit to run DX10 though...


Where are you getting this?

Much ado was made about attempts to get DX10 to run in XP, but I've never heard a credible report of it being successful. XP simply doesn't have WDDM and NT 5.x drivers simply cannot support DX10.

I've seen emulators/wrappers, but that's not the same as native DX10 and they cannot provide anywhere near native performance.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Where are you getting this?
> 
> Much ado was made about attempts to get DX10 to run in XP, but I've never heard a credible report of it being successful. XP simply doesn't have WDDM and NT 5.x drivers simply cannot support DX10.
> 
> I've seen emulators/wrappers, but that's not the same as native DX10 and they cannot provide anywhere near native performance.


You'll have to forgive me, I did not intend to repeat the same post. OCN likes to cache completely unnecessary things.

As for DX10 on XP, it was a long time ago now, maybe 6-8 years ago?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> As for DX10 on XP, it was a long time ago now, maybe 6-8 years ago?


Well, strictly speaking it was never, but there was a big struggle and a pile of rumors around 8-9 years ago about porting DirectX 10 to Windows XP. All that came of it was a bunch of people falling for scams and a exaggerated claims based around emulators.

I'd probably still be running Server 2003 R2 x64 on half my systems if it were possible to port newer DX versions into them.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Well, strictly speaking it was never, but there was a big struggle and a pile of rumors around 8-9 years ago about porting DirectX 10 to Windows XP. All that came of it was a bunch of people falling for scams and a exaggerated claims based around emulators.
> 
> I'd probably still be running Server 2003 R2 x64 on half my systems if it were possible to port newer DX versions into them.


Dont know what to tell ya on that one. Its possible it was an emulator but he didnt have any issues and played later titles until the PSU blew up on him.


----------



## cmpxchg8b

In case this has not been posted yet - here is the full printed article.

http://imgur.com/a/qo9pH


----------



## kd5151

bump ^^^


----------



## sboub78

There is a binary hidden message in the magazine. Don't worry about frequencies and OC capabilities... It will be a BEAST.

See you soon Intel fanboys.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sboub78*
> 
> There is a binary hidden message in the magazine. Don't worry about frequencies and OC capabilities... It will be a BEAST.
> 
> *See you soon Intel fanboys.*


so tell me again who's the fanboy here?


----------



## sboub78

I'm not. I boycott Intel but I don't buy AMD stuff if it's not good.

2600K owner here...


----------



## duganator

?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> In what world would a 4 core and 6 core cpu be the same price(high end)? Do you have to handicap the question so bad and then give a choice of which cpu would you pick?
> 
> Clearly, in that fictional world, everyone would choose a 6 core. But in the real world when its just a gaming rig saving couple hundred dollars for a 4 core is perfectly logical. Clearly, a higher overclocking cpu (6700k/7700k) will do better in just about every game.
> 
> And intel quick sync which is actual hardware in the cpu's that include igpu do a great job at steaming etc.


----------



## duganator

Also have you ever use quick sync to stream? It's great for recording where you can use really high bandwidth, but useless for streaming.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> In what world would a 4 core and 6 core cpu be the same price(high end)? Do you have to handicap the question so bad and then give a choice of which cpu would you pick?
> 
> Clearly, in that fictional world, everyone would choose a 6 core. But in the real world when its just a gaming rig saving couple hundred dollars for a 4 core is perfectly logical. Clearly, a higher overclocking cpu (6700k/7700k) will do better in just about every game.
> 
> And intel quick sync which is actual hardware in the cpu's that include igpu do a great job at steaming etc.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *duganator*
> 
> 
> ?


So overclocked, which of those 3 will give best average gaming performance?


----------



## duganator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> So overclocked, which of those 3 will give best average gaming performance?


6700k, I never argued that. I was just pointing out the price difference is pretty small.


----------



## Dragonsyph

151Quote:


> Originally Posted by *duganator*
> 
> 6700k, I never argued that. I was just pointing out the price difference is pretty small.


21% higher price just for the cpu, and im pretty sure ddr4 and x99 mb cost more than z170. Just by looking at newegg for example, for same motherboard model on x99 and z170 are 60+ dollars difference. No idea what the ddr3 and ddr4 same model ram chips cost though.

A 6700k setup vs an x99 setup are clearly not the SAME. Nor are just the cpus as you posted the walk in only prices and there was a 21% difference.

For everyone else who can't go to microcenter and use newegg and amazon the price difference is 90+ dollars just for the cpu.

So like i said saving money when its just a gaming rig is fine.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *duganator*
> 
> 6700k, I never argued that. I was just pointing out the price difference is pretty small.


I'll take the 5820k or 6800k please


----------



## duganator

The 5820k is only 13% more expensive, they both use ddr4 and you can find tons of cheap x99 boards
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> 21% higher price just for the cpu, and im pretty sure ddr4 and x99 mb cost more than z170. Just by looking at newegg for example, for same motherboard model on x99 and z170 are 60+ dollars difference. No idea what the ddr3 and ddr4 same model ram chips cost though.
> 
> A 6700k setup vs an x99 setup are clearly not the SAME. Nor are just the cpus as you posted the walk in only prices and there was a 21% difference.
> For everyone else who can't go to microcenter and use newegg and amazon the price difference is 90+ dollars just for the cpu.
> 
> So like i said saving money when its just a gaming rig is fine.


----------



## warpuck

The Zens and their Chipsets will be available for every body in April. Guess that will be when we will know what they will cost. Probably seeing some finalized versions in February or March. If Techpowerup is reliable.

https://www.techpowerup.com/229041/motherboard-vendors-optimistic-about-high-price-performance-ratio-of-amd-ryzen


----------



## Poppinj

So the processors will be revealed on Jan 17 but you wont be able to build a system until feb or march? That sucks.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poppinj*
> 
> So the processors will be revealed on Jan 17 but you wont be able to build a system until feb or march? That sucks.


And 10mm Cannonlake is targeted for 2H 2017.


----------



## Poppinj

Man this wait sucks. Im still rocking my 4ghz 750 and am ready to build a new pc as soon as the new chips come out. If rizen lives up to expectations Ill probably jump back to AMD (from the Anthlon 939 socket days) just because its coming out so much sooner than cannonlake.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poppinj*
> 
> Man this wait sucks. Im still rocking my 4ghz 750 and am ready to build a new pc as soon as the new chips come out. If rizen lives up to expectations Ill probably jump back to AMD (from the Anthlon 939 socket days) just because its coming out so much sooner than cannonlake.


It is going to be next to impossible to get a chip the first wave or so, if initial reviews are as positive as things are hinting at. A return to a market that really has competition? Sweet mother of God!


----------



## ladcrooks

*Originally Posted by Norz View Post

Just anything unofficial is just bullcrap...why bother?

When official benchmarks surface, thats when we have confirmation....

This tread is still alive because "I want to belive"
*

Some is bull some isnt - and not just talking about this thread. But who are we to judge truth from fiction? Unless you are psychic, or a undercover agent for intel/amd, you/we will not know!

But many facts out of a pile of bull, have been true. So I myself depending on mood, either carry on reading an article, or in this case, thread, I want to believe ! Not to worried if the figures are slightly out . Zen is going to be my next chip. Bored with 4 cores, I want a V8


----------



## ladcrooks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> It is going to be next to impossible to get a chip the first wave or so, if initial reviews are as positive as things are hinting at. A return to a market that really has competition? Sweet mother of God!


I was one of the very 1st to get a Skylake. Was on the phone the day they came, OCUK, done me proud









But in some parts of the world and if I can remember even OCUK, they became unobtainable for a short period


----------



## sboub78

Quote:


> There is a binary hidden message in the magazine. Don't worry about frequencies and OC capabilities... It will be a BEAST.


http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2I71P-f

Last page.


----------



## Rickyyy369

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sboub78*
> 
> http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2I71P-f
> 
> Last page.


Translates to "[email protected]=5G"


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickyyy369*
> 
> Translates to "[email protected]=5G"


That can't be for the 8C, right? Right? RIGHT???????????????/


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *warpuck*
> 
> The Zens and their Chipsets will be available for every body in April. Guess that will be when we will know what they will cost. Probably seeing some finalized versions in February or March. If Techpowerup is reliable.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/229041/motherboard-vendors-optimistic-about-high-price-performance-ratio-of-amd-ryzen


From Digitimes:
Quote:


> Optimistic about its high price/performance ratio...


I'm sure DigiTimes has their numerator and denominator swapped, otherwise, it's obvious why motherboard players are going to be very happy (at first). Customers, not so much.


----------



## ladcrooks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickyyy369*
> 
> Translates to "[email protected]=5G"


Now that would be a sight for sore eyes









Ja'tame


----------



## hunterwindu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickyyy369*
> 
> Translates to "[email protected]=5G"


Tychus said it best - "Hell..it's about time!"


----------



## Poppinj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> It is going to be next to impossible to get a chip the first wave or so, if initial reviews are as positive as things are hinting at. A return to a market that really has competition? Sweet mother of God!


Yeah thats usually the case. The demand will be so high that people will snatch them up and turn around and sell them for massive profits on ebay and such. It might take a couple months for it to all smooth out.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Did you guys see this from DigiTimes? says:
Quote:


> AMD's next-generation 14nm Ryzen series processors will be unveiled in the first quarter of 2017 and the new platform will be officially released at the end of February and enter global mass shipments in March, according to sources from motherboard players.










long wait if it's true.


----------



## bigjdubb

That sounds like the right time frame from what I have been seeing the last few weeks. 2 months isn't that long of a wait, especially for those who have been waiting since Phenom II to give AMD some luvin'.


----------



## hunterwindu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poppinj*
> 
> Yeah thats usually the case. The demand will be so high that people will snatch them up and turn around and sell them for massive profits on ebay and such. It might take a couple months for it to all smooth out.


Not me, man. I'm going to get a chip day 1 and sleep with it next to my pillow, until I get the rest of the components to hook it up, all while strongly clutching my automatic airsoft rifle. Ain't nobody getting my Ryzen. Not for ten times the money I'll pay for it.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> That sounds like the right time frame from what I have been seeing the last few weeks. 2 months isn't that long of a wait, especially for those who have been waiting since Phenom II to give AMD some luvin'.


Yeah suppose that's true. I was kinda hoping for Ryzen to be released earlier than Vega later, doesn't give me much time to save for a whole new tower and 3 new monitors







.

So next week at CES AMD should do a paper launch of Ryzen shouldn't they with full specs and pricing?


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aussiejuggalo*
> 
> Yeah suppose that's true. I was kinda hoping for Ryzen to be released earlier than Vega later, doesn't give me much time to save for a whole new tower and 3 new monitors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> So next week at CES AMD should do a paper launch of Ryzen shouldn't they with full specs and pricing?


That's the hope but who knows? Maybe they might push it back but CES is the place to launch it


----------



## bigjdubb

Would they launch Ryzen and Vega at the same time? I thought Vega was supposed to be unveiled at CES.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> That's the hope but who knows? Maybe they might push it back but CES is the place to launch it


Yeah they would have to launch at CES even if it is just a paper one otherwise it's kind of a bad move for them to have New Horizon than not launch at CES.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> Would they launch Ryzen and Vega at the same time? I thought Vega was supposed to be unveiled at CES.


Considering what we seen at New Horizon Vega may not even be ready to launch... but if it is it might be better to split the launches by at least a couple of weeks to a month so both get there time in the limelight. Remember both are massive launches for AMD especially Ryzen you'd want to hype it heaps, launch, let the hype die down than launch a new major product so as they don't overshadow each other. Could also be better for sales splitting the launches as well.


----------



## JackCY

Just launch both as a package deal and call it a day.


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Just launch both as a package deal and call it a day.


You think GF has enough capacity on 14nm for Vega, Zen, whatever rumored Polaris refresh?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> You think GF has enough capacity on 14nm for Vega, Zen, whatever rumored Polaris refresh?


When you don't have enough customers, you have all the capacity for the customers you have.









seriously tho, no one uses GF as much as TSMC/samsung. apart from that, AMD's new WSA deal allows them to use samsung/TSMC if they need more wafers as they wish.


----------



## Marios145

It could be that the first zen es(A0) are problematic and newer steppings are even faster.(or intentionally gimped to hide true performance)
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/813521405635686400

Could zen actually be even faster than those benchmarks we saw, and clocks to 5GHz on air?
Is it possible that AMD pulled an Athlon?

CanardPC, when asked replied with this tweet:
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/814263696948162560
Quote:


> "Here is a copy of the same page from our March 2016 issue (CPC HW 28). Was it true?"
> 010010010110111001110100011001010110110000100000010001110101000001010101001000000011110100100000010000010100110101000100


Binary translates to "Intel GPU = AMD"

And we saw the rumour that intel is in talks with amd for licensing graphics...

Engage warp speed on the hype train!!!


----------



## EightDee8D

Hype train has no speed limit it seems.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Man. This could get real interesting. Could this deal with intel be the other semi-custom win or was that an ARM device? So the rumor was right about the intel with Radeon graphics, i get the feeling hes right about the 5GHhz too.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> It could be that the first zen es(A0) are problematic and newer steppings are even faster.(or intentionally gimped to hide true performance)
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/813521405635686400
> 
> Could zen actually be even faster than those benchmarks we saw, and clocks to 5GHz on air?
> Is it possible that AMD pulled an Athlon?
> 
> CanardPC, when asked replied with this tweet:
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/814263696948162560
> 
> And we saw the rumour that intel is in talks with amd for licensing graphics...
> 
> Engage warp speed on the hype train!!!


I can't read french. Could you please tell what's written on that snapshot?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> I can't read french. Could you please tell what's written on that snapshot?


I don't read French either, but I'm sure it can be easily paraphrased as "hype".


----------



## Marios145

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> I can't read french. Could you please tell what's written on that snapshot?


He said:
"Here is a copy of the same page from our March 2016 issue (CPC HW 28). Was it true?"
010010010110111001110100011001010110110000100000010001110101000001010101001000000011110100100000010000010100110101000100
Binary translates to "Intel GPU = AMD"

Sorry but i don't use twitter It was a bit further down in the twitter discussion.

Edited post above.


----------



## ladcrooks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Hype train has no speed limit it seems.


the emergency chords have been disabled
















I wanna jump but its too fast


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I don't read French either, but I'm sure it can be easily paraphrased as "hype".


But, this guy is better than wccftech. I'll give him that. Isn't it?


----------



## JackCY

I guess by Q1 2017 I'm gonna start calling the AMD products either vaporware or hypeware if they aren't launched.

Used to be that AMD had so many wafers they had to buy but didn't sell enough products made from them. I don't think capacity of production is the issue especially since they can use multiple locations to produce. It's not as if when they start producing CPUs they have to stop producing GPUs etc. They produce all of it continuously. The problem often is they do not have enough stock for the initial launch as that requires them to sink too much money into it first. And some products are mass ordered either by OEMs or mining farms which depletes the initial stock in no time.


----------



## Olivon

WCCFTurd got nothing to do with Doc TB.
He's a real journalist with a real work of investigation and verification, with real insiders knowledge.
Those teenies run a sensationalist, clickbait site in order to gain 2 peanuts with most of the times wrong informations.
They live in two different world.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> WCCFTurd got nothing to do with Doc TB.
> He's a real journalist with a real work of investigation and verification, with real insiders knowledge.
> Those teenies run a sensationalist, clickbait site in order to gain 2 peanuts with most of the times wrong informations.
> They live in two different world.


Yeah.I know. That's why my state is beyond hyped. I mean, come on. First, Haswell level IPC rumor was enough to Start the hype. Then brodwell-E level IPC.. Then, 3.4ghz+ base clock within 95w tdp. And now, 5GHz air overclockfrom a pretty reliable source ? It definitly is over 9000.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Yeah.I know. That's why my state is beyond hyped. I mean, come on. First, Haswell level IPC rumor was enough to Start the hype. Then brodwell-E level IPC.. Then, 3.4ghz+ base clock within 95w tdp. And now, 5GHz air overclockfrom a pretty reliable source ? It definitly is over 9000.


OMG over 9000MHz!!!


----------



## Marios145

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Yeah.I know. That's why my state is beyond hyped. I mean, come on. First, Haswell level IPC rumor was enough to Start the hype. Then brodwell-E level IPC.. Then, 3.4ghz+ base clock within 95w tdp.And now, 5GHz air overclockfrom a pretty reliable source ? *It definitly is over 9000*.


Which isn't even final silicon...or...to phrase it better.....This isn't even its final form!!!!!!


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Yeah.I know. That's why my state is beyond hyped. I mean, come on. First, Haswell level IPC rumor was enough to Start the hype. Then brodwell-E level IPC.. Then, 3.4ghz+ base clock within 95w tdp. And now, 5GHz air overclockfrom a pretty reliable source ? It definitly is over 9000.


Time will tell dude but Doc TB got a really serious carrier background.
In France, with Marc from HFR, they're guru hardware and ultra respected.
They're really trustworthy guyz who fight marketing tricks since decades.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Time will tell dude but Doc TB got a really serious carrier background.
> In France, with Marc from HFR, they're guru hardware and ultra respected.
> They're really trustworthy guyz who fight marketing tricks since decades.


Then what about this?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1579520/zen-hyper-thread/1440#post_25740541
Post 1457


----------



## Olivon

It's difficult to answer because I respect The_Stilt a lot too. Time will tell bro.


----------



## mohiuddin

Yeah.me too. So much for hype train toot...


----------



## Kuivamaa

Stilt is respactable as well. I just feel he got a blind spot when it comes to Ryzen.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Yeah.I know. That's why my state is beyond hyped. I mean, come on. First, Haswell level IPC rumor was enough to Start the hype. Then brodwell-E level IPC.. Then, 3.4ghz+ base clock within 95w tdp. And now, 5GHz air overclockfrom a pretty reliable source ? It definitly is over 9000.


Ryzen is good enough for me.


----------



## budgetgamer120

I won't expect 5ghz from Zen. I'm being realistic and expect 4.3 to 4.5ghz tops.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poppinj*
> 
> Yeah thats usually the case. The demand will be so high that people will snatch them up and turn around and sell them for massive profits on ebay and such. It might take a couple months for it to all smooth out.


Buying as many as possible on launch and reselling them is mighty tempting. Could pay for an entire rebuild in of itself!


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Stilt is respactable as well. I just feel he got a blind spot when it comes to Ryzen.


I think he's just trying to keep people grounded in their expectations... but i also think this hype train has no brakes anymore lol.


----------



## Marios145

Stilt had no actual silicon, but canardpc had actual silicon on their hands. He's just skeptical, like everyone is.
I don't think that zen can stay 24/7 5ghz, it was probably a suicide run at high voltage. My bet is that it will run around 4.5 for daily use/normal voltage


----------



## SoloCamo

Honestly, from what we've seen as long as Zen can pretty much guarantee every chip will hit 4ghz most of us will be more than pleased.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> I think he's just trying to keep people grounded in their expectations... but i also think this hype train has no brakes anymore lol.


I do not expect 5GHz on air either. Frankly 4.5GHz would be dreamy and even then I would expect degradation 2 years down the road. Having said that ,I do not feel particularly hyped. I was called an optimistic 19 months ago in this very forum.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1554467/guru3d-amd-readies-14nm-zen-up-to-40-percent-faster-ipc-performance/240#post_23932120

In reality , It seems I was pessimistic







That old thread is very interesting, regarding what people's Zen expectations were.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I do not expect 5GHz on air either. Frankly 4.5GHz would be dreamy and even then I would expect degradation 2 years down the road. Having said that ,I do not feel particularly hyped. I was called an optimistic 19 months ago in this very forum.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1554467/guru3d-amd-readies-14nm-zen-up-to-40-percent-faster-ipc-performance/240#post_23932120
> 
> In reality , It seems I was pessimistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That old thread is very interesting, regarding what people's Zen expectations were.


That thread shows how negative people have been towards AMD and Zen for awhile now.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I do not expect 5GHz on air either. Frankly 4.5GHz would be dreamy and even then I would expect degradation 2 years down the road. Having said that ,I do not feel particularly hyped. I was called an optimistic 19 months ago in this very forum.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1554467/guru3d-amd-readies-14nm-zen-up-to-40-percent-faster-ipc-performance/240#post_23932120
> 
> In reality , It seems I was pessimistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That old thread is very interesting, regarding what people's Zen expectations were.


From what I've seen the majority of 6900K's don't seem to go over 4.5Ghz either, so if AMD could achieve 4.5Ghz on first gen Ryzen, it would be damn impressive.

If 5Ghz on air on the 8 core (SR7?) is actually a thing, were in for some very interesting times CPU wise.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I do not expect 5GHz on air either. Frankly 4.5GHz would be dreamy and even then I would expect degradation 2 years down the road. Having said that ,I do not feel particularly hyped. I was called an optimistic 19 months ago in this very forum.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1554467/guru3d-amd-readies-14nm-zen-up-to-40-percent-faster-ipc-performance/240#post_23932120
> 
> In reality , It seems I was pessimistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That old thread is very interesting, regarding what people's Zen expectations were.
> 
> 
> 
> That thread shows how negative people have been towards AMD and Zen for awhile now.
Click to expand...

Considering how badly Bulldozer tanked, it's not hard to see why.


----------



## raghu78

Yeah there are quite a few indications that 5 Ghz might not be possible for 24x7. But I think 4.5 Ghz is now looking very realistic. btw keep in mind nobody has final production silicon in hands. All statements are based on earlier steppings like A0 or A1 or A2. A3 looks to be the final production stepping.

Here are a few statements . Make what you want of it.

AMD overclocker buildzoid says 5 Ghz on air is not realistically happening for 24x7. Maybe suicide runs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5krghq/remember_the_canard_pc_magazine_about_zen_it_has/?

buildzoid Extreme AMD Overclocker. 1580/2310 XFX RX 480 GTR 24 points 21 hours ago

*" I'll just use this comment to say this since it's relevant to me.

I don't have a Zen but I know people who do.

I continue to stand by my comment about 5G not happening on air without too much voltage. This doesn't disprove the statement of [email protected]=5G however I wouldn't get your hopes up because we don't know how many cores or volts actually managed that clock. (my sources never gave me absolute max clock just that it does about X.X for daily use)

For all those wondering about X.X. Well lets just say that I am pleased with X.X."*

charlie of semiaccurate saying Zen clocks well and that there are bugs in current steppings A1 and A2 and that the final production stepping A3 will have them resolved .

http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=163466&curpostid=163829

*"No hard data but friends have told me it clocks well. If 3.4 is launch speeds, 5 should be no problem for the pros. Haven't heard of any speed path issues yet but you never know until the LN2 guys get ahold of it.

-Charlie"*

http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=163466&curpostid=163804

*Alexko ([email protected]) on December 28, 2016 8:12 am wrote:
I assume that the missing features have to do with clock and power management, not microarchitecture, right?

Yeah. Turbo was one, some power management was another, and some minor stuff. It is in the CPU just that the stepping we used was either disabled or buggy. This is normal development stuff, not anything major and most of it seems to be firmware and optimizations, not basic functionality.

I am aware of the open bug counts on A1 and A2 and am very optimistic based on the changes. The next step (A3/4th rev of Zen) should have the last few stamped out long before release. It was stable enough to play Doom on last June so....

-Charlie*

Finally we have Fottemberg of bits and chips saying latest revisions of Zen clocking better than expected.

*https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/with_replies

Bits And Chips - Eng ‏@BitsAndChipsEng Dec 28
@abbaveto88 AMD is tweaking the final frequencies. Latest revisions of Zen are allowing higher frequencies than expected.*


----------



## CriticalOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Considering how badly Bulldozer tanked, it's not hard to see why.


Exactly. I'm not going to get wound up by rumors or hype until the CPUs are available to buy.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> Exactly. I'm not going to get wound up by rumors or hype until the CPUs are available to buy.


If you remember,BD design raised questions and later on, leaks were painting a black picture which was confirmed when final product hit the market. This time round the design was well received and leaks hint on a powerful CPU.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Yeah there are quite a few indications that 5 Ghz might not be possible for 24x7. But I think 4.5 Ghz is now looking very realistic. btw keep in mind nobody has final production silicon in hands. All statements are based on earlier steppings like A0 or A1 or A2. A3 looks to be the final production stepping.
> 
> Here are a few statements . Make what you want of it.
> 
> AMD overclocker buildzoid says 5 Ghz on air is not realistically happening for 24x7. Maybe suicide runs.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5krghq/remember_the_canard_pc_magazine_about_zen_it_has/?
> 
> buildzoid Extreme AMD Overclocker. 1580/2310 XFX RX 480 GTR 24 points 21 hours ago
> 
> *" I'll just use this comment to say this since it's relevant to me.
> 
> I don't have a Zen but I know people who do.
> 
> I continue to stand by my comment about 5G not happening on air without too much voltage. This doesn't disprove the statement of [email protected]=5G however I wouldn't get your hopes up because we don't know how many cores or volts actually managed that clock. (my sources never gave me absolute max clock just that it does about X.X for daily use)
> 
> For all those wondering about X.X. Well lets just say that I am pleased with X.X."*
> 
> charlie of semiaccurate saying Zen clocks well and that there are bugs in current steppings A1 and A2 and that the final production stepping A3 will have them resolved .
> 
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=163466&curpostid=163829
> 
> *"No hard data but friends have told me it clocks well. If 3.4 is launch speeds, 5 should be no problem for the pros. Haven't heard of any speed path issues yet but you never know until the LN2 guys get ahold of it.
> 
> -Charlie"*
> 
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=163466&curpostid=163804
> 
> *Alexko ([email protected]) on December 28, 2016 8:12 am wrote:
> I assume that the missing features have to do with clock and power management, not microarchitecture, right?
> 
> Yeah. Turbo was one, some power management was another, and some minor stuff. It is in the CPU just that the stepping we used was either disabled or buggy. This is normal development stuff, not anything major and most of it seems to be firmware and optimizations, not basic functionality.
> 
> I am aware of the open bug counts on A1 and A2 and am very optimistic based on the changes. The next step (A3/4th rev of Zen) should have the last few stamped out long before release. It was stable enough to play Doom on last June so....
> 
> -Charlie*
> 
> Finally we have Fottemberg of bits and chips saying latest revisions of Zen clocking better than expected.
> 
> *https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/with_replies
> 
> Bits And Chips - Eng ‏@BitsAndChipsEng Dec 28
> @abbaveto88 AMD is tweaking the final frequencies. Latest revisions of Zen are allowing higher frequencies than expected.*


Don't do it to me. This is too exciting.

4.5Ghz on air 24/7 OC would be a dream tbh. That would really light a fire under Intel's a%$ and promote some serious competition in the CPU space.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I don't really know why people expected different. Single core performance is still the biggest factor that determines how well a CPU performs in games.


Single core performance matters when things are lightly threaded. See AMD's terrible single core performance is competitive in BF1 with their 8 core CPU.
Quote:


> And then once we we look at frametime latency, that's where you can see the real and bigger picture, all is very close to each other. Let's say 11ms latency, which equals to equates 90 FPS. The huge spikes are grenade/mortar impacts and when not cached the create an FPS drop and thus stutter. Things like these make the game hard to measure on average FPS as the effects are pretty random in-game. The interesting fact remains to be that Battlefield 1 does not require a 1200 USD processor to run. I mean for a 200 bucks processor, that is a near perfect gaming experience. DX11 versus 12 relative to processors is pretty much irrelevant.


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,9.html


----------



## FlanK3r

Real OC could be around the 4.2-4.3 GHz with solid AIR/AIO cooling.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlanK3r*
> 
> Real OC could be around the 4.2-4.3 GHz with solid AIR/AIO cooling.


depends on how many core.
I think that quad core should reach 4.7GHz+-, six @4.4GHz+- and 8 @4.2GHz+- core lower.


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Don't do it to me. This is too exciting.
> 
> 4.5Ghz on air 24/7 OC would be a dream tbh. That would really light a fire under Intel's a%$ and promote some serious competition in the CPU space.


Hype train going into overdrive. People shouldn't buy into this. Its one thing for AMD to achieve what Canard PC is saying in the charts, its another thing entirety to start thinking 5 Ghz air, etc, etc. Polaris had the rumors of 980Ti performance, completely untrue, hype-generated, and feeding it.

Besides, its better to be surprised than disappointed, remember that just achieving near 6900k performance is something AMD has exceeded expectations. The goalposts are moving...


----------



## Removed1

OP should edit the thread news!


----------



## Twinnuke

Lmao so many people in his tread have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to multi threaded games. There are so many levels of multi threading in games now from both hardware level to software level that's why you can see your cores being used pretty evenly on most modern games from Aaa teams.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Considering how badly Bulldozer tanked, it's not hard to see why.


So if one failure relegates them to the trash, what does their success do for them?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> Exactly. I'm not going to get wound up by rumors or hype until the CPUs are available to buy.


Even that logic, and availability, didn't stop people from getting scammed by Intel's Netburst.

The truth is, Intel and AMD have had the same technical success over the same rough period of time (Athlon 64 to now). AMD being the performance dominante, Intel being behind, to what we have today. Yet it seems people here are willing to forgive and forget Intel's failures and transgressions, but God forbid anyone give AMD a break on it?

I guess the real question is; If Intel is so easily forgiven for their illegal activities and Netburst failure, why can't AMD be forgiven for Bulldozer?

The obvious double standards are obvious!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> So if one failure relegates them to the trash, what does their success do for them?


It's very hard to argue with that emotionally-charged 'logic' some people use with regards to AMD and BD. Some people suffer from borderline PTSD after that release and it makes for terribly unproductive conversations. Never mind that AMD's chips, whilst certainly not up to Intel's standard, have been very inexpensive in both CPU and platform cost while offering acceptable mainstream performance. We're all about hyperbole here at OCN so an AMD processor in your PC renders the system unusable.

If I approached my work the way that some people approach AMD news, I'd throw out three quarters of my data because it didn't fit with my preconceived notions, drop lines of research because of a disappointing result, or throw out building-block solutions because they weren't blanket cure-all's.

Nothing about this launch is reminiscent of BD and I can't understand why some people can't let go of that launch to look at what's ahead of us.


----------



## kd5151

ryzen will be better than i7s from 2008


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> Hype train going into overdrive. People shouldn't buy into this. Its one thing for AMD to achieve what Canard PC is saying in the charts, its another thing entirety to start thinking 5 Ghz air, etc, etc. Polaris had the rumors of 980Ti performance, completely untrue, hype-generated, and feeding it.
> 
> Besides, its better to be surprised than disappointed, remember that just achieving near 6900k performance is something AMD has exceeded expectations. The goalposts are moving...


Near 6900k performance?

Based on AMD testing, it exceeds the 6900k.


----------



## kd5151

its good!


----------



## CriticalOne

I don't know how not believing in pre-release hype and unconfirmed rumors/benchmarks is a bad thing and what Intel has anything to do with this discussion.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I don't know how not believing in pre-release hype and unconfirmed rumors/benchmarks is a bad thing and what Intel has anything to do with this discussion.


Well considering Intel is the only other major CPU manufacture apart from AMD you kind of need to talk about both, unless you wanna compare Ryzen to a VIA CPU







.

As for rumours people need to stop believing them, even the god damn pricing everyone's been going off was made up by somebody, it wasn't a rumour it was a best guess which will probably be wrong anyway. AMD showed more than enough at New Horizon to prove that Ryzen can at the very least compete... unless everything was fake which is seriously doubtful because if it was we may as well say bye bye to AMD right now.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I don't know how not believing in pre-release hype and unconfirmed rumors/benchmarks is a bad thing and what Intel has anything to do with this discussion.


There's nothing wrong with what you've stated, as you've stated it. There is something wrong with assuming failure based on the launch of a different product half a decade past.

Not accepting hype and rumour is a logical perspective if one prefers a cautious and measured approach to speculation. Stating a disbelief in said rumours because of BD's disappointing performance is not a logical perspective; taking one element which is useful in critically assessing a rumour and using it as the basis for a blanket statement is fundamentally illogical. Posts which make those assumptions are every bit as presumptuous as those which assume that AMD will crush Intel based on unconfirmed rumours.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> There's nothing wrong with what you've stated, as you've stated it. There is something wrong with assuming failure based on the launch of a different product half a decade past.
> 
> Not accepting hype and rumour is a logical perspective if one prefers a cautious and measured approach to speculation. Stating a disbelief in said rumours _because_ _of_ BD's disappointing performance is not a logical perspective; taking one element which is useful in critically assessing a rumour and using it as the basis for a blanket statement is fundamentally illogical_. _Posts which make those assumptions are every bit as presumptuous as those which assume that AMD will crush Intel based on unconfirmed rumours.


Your Avatar is just killing me as I read your post(s) in this thread.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Your Avatar is just killing me as I read your post(s) in this thread.












The CPU scene is as exciting as it's been in years with these prospective Zen leaks. I can understand people being cautious but I feel like some are just trying to hedge their bets for potential toldja-so's. The leaks thus far are consistent enough that I'm much more optimistic than I was even a few months ago when I was convinced that Haswell IPC in certain tasks would be the upper limit. I think Keller and friends pulled out all the stops and I cannot wait to see Zen/Ryzen/whateva run through the ringer by people I trust here on OCN.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> So if one failure relegates them to the trash, what does their success do for them?
> Even that logic, and availability, didn't stop people from getting scammed by Intel's Netburst.
> 
> The truth is, Intel and AMD have had the same technical success over the same rough period of time (Athlon 64 to now). AMD being the performance dominante, Intel being behind, to what we have today. Yet it seems people here are willing to forgive and forget Intel's failures and transgressions, but God forbid anyone give AMD a break on it?
> 
> I guess the real question is; If Intel is so easily forgiven for their illegal activities and Netburst failure, why can't AMD be forgiven for Bulldozer?
> 
> The obvious double standards are obvious!


I am hesitant to buy AMD because they are more likely to skip a product cycle.

I just bought a freesync monitor. I am confident AMD will release a top tier GPU within the next couple months(I have already committed to an AMD GPU anyway), but it may be 2 years before they release the next architecture.

Same goes for their chipsets.

With Intel and NVidia, you are pretty much guaranteed an incremental upgrade every 12-18 months.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> I am hesitant to buy AMD because they are more likely to skip a product cycle.
> 
> I just bought a freesync monitor. I am confident AMD will release a top tier GPU within the next couple months(I have already committed to an AMD GPU anyway), but it may be 2 years before they release the next architecture.
> 
> Same goes for their chipsets.
> 
> With Intel and NVidia, you are pretty much guaranteed an incremental upgrade every 12-18 months.


They have a larger budget though and with Intel the biggest jump in the past years has been the DDR4 upgrade


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> And 10mm Cannonlake is targeted for 2H 2017.


And yet it can literally take more than one year to launch and still manage to be 2H 2107.

With Intel's recent track record of missing every single deadline I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> I am hesitant to buy AMD because they are more likely to skip a product cycle.
> 
> I just bought a freesync monitor. I am confident AMD will release a top tier GPU within the next couple months(I have already committed to an AMD GPU anyway), but it may be 2 years before they release the next architecture.
> 
> Same goes for their chipsets.
> 
> With Intel and NVidia, you are pretty much guaranteed an incremental upgrade every 12-18 months.


In the event you aren't aware...

AM4 is going to be their sole platform, that they focus and build on with this brand new architecture.

Intel is the company that has the numerous socket changes, that force consumer upgrades on motherboards just to upgrade a processor after a VERY incremental processor release. In fact one of the things Intel is known for is dumping a socket after just a couple of years, where as AMD has platforms that tend to last several years.

Trying to argue longevity for Intel is insane.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> In the event you aren't aware...
> 
> AM4 is going to be their sole platform, that they focus and build on with this brand new architecture.
> 
> Intel is the company that has the numerous socket changes, that force consumer upgrades on motherboards just to upgrade a processor after a VERY incremental processor release. In fact one of the things Intel is known for is dumping a socket after just a couple of years, where as AMD has platforms that tend to last several years.
> 
> Trying to argue longevity for Intel is insane.


What is AMD's roadmap for AM4?


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> What is AMD's roadmap for AM4?


This I want to know too, barring price, it will probably come down to AM4 top end board vs X299 top end board specs.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> What is AMD's roadmap for AM4?


Roadmap doesn't exist past Zen+ which will also be on AM4.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Roadmap doesn't exist past Zen+ which will also be on AM4.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Roadmap doesn't exist past Zen+ which will also be on AM4.


I know that but I am not sure if Twinkie is aware.

With LGA1151, I can upgrade to 10mm.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> This I want to know too, barring price, it will probably come down to AM4 top end board vs X299 top end board specs.


While top end is important I think that will be more important for the AMD will be the entry level feature set between Intel and AMD platforms against the price of the platfrom (i.e., CPU + mobo).

I mean Intel entry level chipsets are very delibertely crippled, for example, by having only PCIe 2.0 standard while a notch up you already get 3.0 and so on. So if AMD would be able to offer even, say 8x PCIe 3,0 lanes at their bottom end and would have a CPU present similar in price to the bottom end Celerons / Pentiums it would make it an no-brainer decision against H110, for example and quite a solid decision even when compared against B150, for example.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> I know that but I am not sure if Twinkie is aware.
> 
> With LGA1151, I can upgrade to 10mm.


Are you kidding me?

How can you say I am not aware of what I am telling you, and you even acknowledged?

Let me put it another way; Intel dumps platforms every 24 months or so. While AMD will be sticking with AM4 for the next 36 to 48 months at least. AM4 will be Zen and Zen+...

You tried to state AMD's platform hopping was why you wouldn't use them, instead using Intel. When Intel is the one that platform hops every two years.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> How can you say I am not aware of what I am telling you, and you even acknowledged?
> 
> Let me put it another way; Intel dumps platforms every 24 months or so. While AMD will be sticking with AM4 for the next 36 to 48 months at least. AM4 will be Zen and Zen+...
> 
> You tried to state AMD's platform hopping was why you wouldn't use them, instead using Intel. When Intel is the one that platform hops every two years.


What manufacuring process will Zen+ be?


----------



## TrevBlu19

7nm hopefully, they are skipping 10nm


----------



## The-Beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> I know that but I am not sure if Twinkie is aware.
> 
> With LGA1151, I can upgrade to 10mm.


You can upgrade to whatever nm you want but if the platform doesn't offer improved performance you're wasting money and fueling bad practices. Which is exactly what you did if you went to 1151 in the first place.


----------



## DarkRadeon7000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *warpuck*
> 
> The Zens and their Chipsets will be available for every body in April. Guess that will be when we will know what they will cost. Probably seeing some finalized versions in February or March. If Techpowerup is reliable.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/229041/motherboard-vendors-optimistic-about-high-price-performance-ratio-of-amd-ryzen


Welp.Seems like the i7 6700k just became more attractive for me if the release is this late.Might as well get the i7 considering at best Ryzen will just match the 6700k and not beat it


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkRadeon7000*
> 
> Welp.Seems like the i7 6700k just became more attractive for me if the release is this late.Might as well get the i7 considering at best Ryzen will just match the 6700k and not beat it


You do know the comparison is between the 6900k and Ryzen, not the 6700k.


----------



## coolhandluke41

GIGABYTE AX370-Gaming









https://www.techpowerup.com/229076/gigabyte-ax370-gaming-k3-socket-am4-motherboard-pcb-pictured


----------



## legend999

That's an Asus on the picture!


----------



## coolhandluke41

^^^ I guess you right haha


Spoiler: misleading article


----------



## Pedros

Yeah, Asus Crossair V Formula Z ... 990FX


----------



## Pedros

As for Ryzen news ... what i'm seeing with this hype is that, this time around, the supposed rumours are much more positive and optimistic than they where with BD.

In life, either on the personal side or professional, we need to fail in order to success. Success is just a sum of all the fails and wrong paths until we discover/achieve the right one.

So i think this time around, AMD used the BD experience and learned with all the mistakes and misleads that hole development and sales process had.

Taking in consideration that was Jim Keller who design the architecture and possibly the next iterations of the Ryzen, i think we should be pretty sure this launch is going to bring AMD back. Yes, possibility won't be @ Intel level in some aspects but talking about the hole package, i think it's going to be a strong offer.

As for clocks, i still think the first steppings won't be that OC friendly, but common, usually latest intel steppings of a cpu are better than the first ones, it's a natural thing.

In the end, it's good to see people being over-hyped. That means that the CPU industry is, once again, interesting and more, it can get really exciting in 2017. Ryzen being a relative success means more budget for R&D on the AMD side, means Intel starting to thinking differently and approaching the market in a more humble, interestingly way and 2018 is potentially a year where Intel needs to reinvent itself.


----------



## Olivon

Doc TB explains today that 5GHz was done on 1 core only :
Quote:


> If we had been able to test ourselves overclocking, we would have told you openly in the preview. In spite of everything, we know with almost certainty that the CPU that we used for the tests actually came close to the 5 GHz with an (huge) air-dissipator. The multiplier is not clamped at this time and is configured in steps of 0.25x. One core, however, was active; The Motherboard VRMs seemed at that time too unstable to test with all of the cores. Other Ryzen ES are currently in the hands of overclockers and you should not delay to learn more: a demonstration of overclocking could occur at the CES if good results are achieved.


http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-precisions-elucubrations/


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Doc TB explains today that 5GHz was done on 1 core only :
> http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-precisions-elucubrations/


Still, it's good news for the sr3 and sr5.


----------



## Wishmaker

Once core 5GHz o/c, good news ! 7 GHz + o/c on two cores from INTEL, Kaby suxxx, boo booo







.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Once core 5GHz o/c, good news ! 7 GHz + o/c on two cores from INTEL, Kaby suxxx, boo booo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Uhhhhh, what?


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Uhhhhh, what?


Translation : Zen has managed a 5GHz overlock on one core, people see this as positive. Kaby lake has been clocked on two cores at over 7GHz, people were not impressed







. I call this a *hue hue hue* moment







.


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Translation : Zen has managed a 5GHz overlock on one core, people see this as positive. Kaby lake has been clocked on two cores at over 7GHz, people were not impressed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I call this a *hue hue hue* moment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


True, but I am also amazed that people still compare 8-Core CPUs OC to 4-Core CPU OC... like wut?

Also suicide OC are so relevant to general enthusiast OC results









If Zen on average (air and water) will hit on your average consumer above 4,2-4,3 GHz and Kaby Lake 4,7-4,9 I think everybody will be happy here


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Once core 5GHz o/c, good news ! 7 GHz + o/c on two cores from INTEL, Kaby suxxx, boo booo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Was that kaby run on air?


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Translation : Zen has managed a 5GHz overlock on one core, people see this as positive. Kaby lake has been clocked on two cores at over 7GHz, people were not impressed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I call this a *hue hue hue* moment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Ok well first off you are comparing an LN2 run to an air OC done with an engineering sample that is likely no where near as far along as the kaby lake chip was.

Beyond that, considering clock speeds were pretty much the biggest concern with Zen, 5Ghz on air is actually a really good sign. We are talking about an architecture from AMD that could potentially trade blows with kaby and skylake given it is clocked high enough. If I could get an AMD zen 4c8t that is slightly slower at stock and can compete once overclocked, I would probably choose AMD (due to it probably being cheaper than the competition).

People aren't impressed by Kaby because it really is not much of an improvement over anything Intel has previously released. From what I understand, it will just clock slightly better than skylake. Whereas AMD is making an absolutely massive performance jump from bulldozer.

Also, for future reference, making a generalized statement about people saying this and that, holds little weight when you are accusing everyone of something that only 1 person has stated. Not only that, but I only stated half of what you accused me for being hypocritical of.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Was that kaby run on air?


Passive cooling in the centre of Australia's Northern Territory.

Nah, I'm fairly certain I remember seeing 5GHz broached on air with Kaby (don't know about the feasibility of maintaining that clock with air) but I'd bet on the 7GHz results being suicide-water or LN2 territory.


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Was that kaby run on air?


Is 5 GHz on air and one core truly that impressive? More impressive than 2 cores on LN2 at 7.2 GHz? A small FYI, Kaby will do 5GHz with pretty much all features active and on air.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Ok well first off you are comparing an LN2 run to an air OC done with an engineering sample that is likely no where near as far along as the kaby lake chip was.
> 
> Beyond that, considering clock speeds were pretty much the biggest concern with Zen, 5Ghz on air is actually a really good sign. We are talking about an architecture from AMD that could potentially trade blows with kaby and skylake given it is clocked high enough. If I could get an AMD zen 4c8t that is slightly slower at stock and can compete once overclocked, I would probably choose AMD (due to it probably being cheaper than the competition).
> 
> People aren't impressed by Kaby because it really is not much of an improvement over anything Intel has previously released. From what I understand, it will just clock slightly better than skylake. Whereas AMD is making an absolutely massive performance jump from bulldozer.
> 
> Also, for future reference, making a generalized statement about people saying this and that, holds little weight when you are accusing everyone of something that only 1 person has stated. Not only that, but I only stated half of what you accused me for being hypocritical of.


I understand that. This 5GHz was done on *ONE CORE*







.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Passive cooling in the centre of Australia's Northern Territory.
> 
> Nah, I'm fairly certain I remember seeing 5GHz broached on air with Kaby (don't know about the feasibility of maintaining that clock with air) but I'd bet on the 7GHz results being suicide-water or LN2 territory.


Has to be LN2. That said , 5GHz on air even on one core serms impressive exactly because sammy 14nm FF was described as an obstacle for anything above 4.5 -nothing to do with intel.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Is 5 GHz on air and one core truly that impressive? More impressive than 2 cores on LN2 at 7.2 GHz? A small FYI, Kaby will do 5GHz with pretty much all features active and on air.


I mean, the Stilt topped 8.7GHz on Vishy. I'm not saying that the Kaby result isn't impressive for an 14nm LN2 run but it's not as though anybody will be playing The Division on a 7GHz LN2 KL so it's a bit moot for general purposes. What's more important is the clockspeeds that Kaby and Zen hold comfortably on common enthusiast cooling solutions and how well that clockspeed scales with their respective architectures. I'd say that the Zen results, if accurate, point to a very solid architecture but we know nothing of how it will scale with clocks. We do know how Kaby will scale with clocks because Skylake exists. 5GHz would offer incredible ST performance and very good MT performance but would the ST performance advantage be wide enough between Kaby and Zen to make up for some of Zen's attractive features? More cores, more threads, board compatibility with Zen+, etc.

'Catching up', for the purposes of competition and market-share, is a sum of parts and ST performance is just one of those parts (albeit a heavily weighted one).


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Is 5 GHz on air and one core truly that impressive? More impressive than 2 cores on LN2 at 7.2 GHz? A small FYI, Kaby will do 5GHz with pretty much all features active and on air.


Was Kaby coming from a garbage architecture? Were people speculating that Kaby would be stuck in the mid to low 3ghz range? Is Kaby supposed to be the saving grace of a company that hasn't competed for almost a decade in the x86 space?

The hope for zen was just for it to compete. Not crush Intel. Impressive means that they have achieved that, and maybe even have done a little better than just competing. This is a brand new architecture, not an update.

For Intels chip to be impressive in the same way, it would need to be the answer that everyone was/is hoping for every time Intel releases a new lineup. That would be another jump like nehalem to sandy, but it is just another incremental increase.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Once core 5GHz o/c, good news ! 7 GHz + o/c on two cores from INTEL, Kaby suxxx, boo booo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


That's on Liquid nitrogen ,Dude. not 78% nitrogen.


----------



## renx

I'm thinking that we may not hear from Ryzen on CES. The New Horizon event took place too recently. I hope I'm wrong tho.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I'm thinking that we may not hear from Ryzen on CES. The New Horizon event took place too recently. I hope I'm wrong tho.


AMD not talking about Ryzen in CES is possibly one of the dumbest things they can do imo.


----------



## bigjdubb

All I care to hear them talk about at CES is Vega, Vega and more Vega.


----------



## lolerk52

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814837806933692416


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814837806933692416


What does it mean?


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> What does it mean?


A Ryzen 8 core SKU for 400$~.
Probably not top SKU, but still a very good deal compared to Intel with 6 cores for the same price.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> What does it mean?


It means Ryzen is serious business.

More confirmation that these CPUs are gonna light a fire under Intel's a%$.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> What does it mean?


It means that the hype train's breaking system just failed. now a disaster is guaranteed. for intel or amd ? only time will tell.







choo choo ......


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> It means that the hype train's breaking system just failed. now a disaster is guaranteed. for intel or amd ? only time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> choo choo ......














Ryzen 8 core OC's all EIGHT COARZ to 5 Ghz on air!! And you can get the binned version that goes to 6GiggleHurtz for under $200!!!!!


----------



## kd5151

lots of funny memes
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814837806933692416


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen 8 core OC's all EIGHT COARZ to 5 Ghz on air!! And you can get the binned version that goes to 6GiggleHurtz for under $200!!!!!


'Intel inside '? I mean inside the car


----------



## IRobot23

Well do we actually know when "RYZEN" will be in the stores?


----------



## EightDee8D

Before April 2017.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Well do we actually know when "RYZEN" will be in the stores?


After 1/1/2017


----------



## kd5151

Q1 2017.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> What manufacuring process will Zen+ be?


Right now it is anticipated they will use 7nm for Zen+. We might see some overlap at 10nm with Zen and Zen+, but the flagship Zen+ should be done with 7nm.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> It means that the hype train's breaking system just failed. now a disaster is guaranteed. for intel or amd ? only time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> choo choo ......


The brakes didn't fail, we never bothered to put them on in the first place!


----------



## Newwt

Looks like the hype train is chugging along at full speed now, haha


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Right now it is anticipated they will use 7nm for Zen+. We might see some overlap at 10nm with Zen and Zen+, but the flagship Zen+ should be done with 7nm.
> The brakes didn't fail, we never bothered to put them on in the first place!


Anticipated, like hype?


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> Q1 2017.


That depends on delays.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> Anticipated, like hype?


No, as in...

No one can predict the future and everyone can plan on a node, like they did with 20nm, but that node can fail.

It is more than clear that your argument has gone from _"AMD hops platforms too much, so I stick with Intel"_ to _"I want to know the future or else."_. What does the future process at 7nm+ have to do with your comments being nonsense? What hair are you trying to split here?

AM4 will be the platform AMD runs for the next few years minimum, which is already more than what Intel does. It is the history of AMD to support platforms, look at AM3 and AM3+, 5+ years now? While in that time Intel jumped three sockets.

Even your comment about Nvidia supporting platforms for longer than AMD is pretty damn hilarious. It is without a doubt, universally accepted, that AMD tends to lend longer support to their cards. Examples being all of them since the 7000 series to now.

Right now, on this forum, we have threads going with how well AMD GPUs "age".

EDIT:

For added anidoctal giggles; I just recently upgraded my 780 Ti to a 980 Ti because the 780 Ti was starting to choke at 1440P. While the 290X I purchased my brother chooches along just fine.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> No, as in...
> 
> No one can predict the future and everyone can plan on a node, like they did with 20nm, but that node can fail.
> 
> It is more than clear that your argument has gone from _"AMD hops platforms too much, so I stick with Intel"_ to _"I want to know the future or else."_. What does the future process at 7nm+ have to do with your comments being nonsense? What hair are you trying to split here?
> 
> AM4 will be the platform AMD runs for the next few years minimum, which is already more than what Intel does. It is the history of AMD to support platforms, look at AM3 and AM3+, 5+ years now? While in that time Intel jumped three sockets.
> 
> Even your comment about Nvidia supporting platforms for longer than AMD is pretty damn hilarious. It is without a doubt, universally accepted, that AMD tends to lend longer support to their cards. Examples being all of them since the 7000 series to now.
> 
> Right now, on this forum, we have threads going with how well AMD GPUs "age".
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> For added anidoctal giggles; I just recently upgraded my 780 Ti to a 980 Ti because the 780 Ti was starting to choke at 1440P. While the 290X I purchased my brother chooches along just fine.


You're getting there.

My original statement was that AMD is more likely to skip a product cycle.

Intel / Nvidia release upgrades more frequently. If 7mm is in AMD's future, they should tell their investors (in the form of a roadmap).

Otherwise, AM4 owners are left guessing what their next upgrade will be. At this point, we don't know if that is 10mm, 7mm, or 14nm with a 400mm die size that draws 200 watts. We don't know because AMD's roadmap depicts a flat earth with sea monsters.


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> You're getting there.
> 
> My original statement was that AMD is more likely to skip a product cycle.
> 
> Intel / Nvidia release upgrades more frequently. If 7mm is in AMD's future, they should tell their investors (in the form of a roadmap).
> 
> Otherwise, AM4 owners are left guessing what their next upgrade will be. At this point, we don't know if that is 10mm, 7mm, or 14nm with a 400mm die size that draws 200 watts. We don't know because AMD's roadmap depicts a flat earth with sea monsters.










Right....


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> You're getting there.
> 
> My original statement was that AMD is more likely to skip a product cycle.
> 
> Intel / Nvidia release upgrades more frequently. If 7mm is in AMD's future, they should tell their investors (in the form of a roadmap).
> 
> Otherwise, AM4 owners are left guessing what their next upgrade will be. At this point, we don't know if that is 10mm, 7mm, or 14nm with a 400mm die size that draws 200 watts. We don't know because AMD's roadmap depicts a flat earth with sea monsters.












Right!

We get it now, new account, being willfully obtuse. Enjoy the short stay.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right!
> 
> We get it now, new account, being willfully obtuse. Enjoy the short stay.


It is clear you are not even reading what I am posting (I didn't say Nvidia supports platforms longer than AMD or that AMD hops platforms too much).

And being new to a particular forum just means I am not accustomed to how the group thinks; not that I am new to overclocking... Not that you made that statemt


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0451*
> 
> It is clear you are not even reading what I am posting (I didn't say Nvidia supports platforms longer than AMD or that AMD hops platforms too much).
> 
> And being new to a particular forum just means I am not accustomed to how the group thinks; not that I am new to overclocking... Not that you made that statemt


You construed an edit as the main point, then go on to say that your opponent is not reading? Its better to address point by point. Unless Im reading wrong, its 6am here...

Your arguments thus far still havent been aligned with reality Im afraid to say. You dont need to double down, accepting you were mistaken is highly praised here.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Come on AMD. Get at least one Ryzen CPU out by February for mainstream purchase and Intel will bleed.


----------



## CriticalOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Come on AMD. Get at least one Ryzen CPU out by February for mainstream purchase and Intel will bleed.


I would rather AMD take their time and not rush the release. If we can get higher base clocks if we wait a little longer, then I would want them to release later.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> You construed an edit as the main point, then go on to say that your opponent is not reading? Its better to address point by point. Unless Im reading wrong, its 6am here...
> 
> Your arguments thus far still havent been aligned with reality Im afraid to say. You dont need to double down, accepting you were mistaken is highly praised here.


I understand the longevity and support of AM3 and the backward compatibility of AM3+


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I would rather AMD take their time and not rush the release. If we can get higher base clocks if we wait a little longer, *then I would want them to release later*.


Do you understand they're already ages late to the party? And you hope them to delay even further to "not rush the release", we're not talking about a video game here


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I would rather AMD take their time and not rush the release. If we can get higher base clocks if we wait a little longer, then I would want them to release later.


They could also just release higher clocked versions later.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Do you understand they're already ages late to the party? And you hope them to delay even further to "not rush the release", we're not talking about a video game here


They're not late for anything. If what we've seen so far is true, Zen can stand on it's own both against Skylake and Broadwell-E, in performance and efficiency. They have to get the launch correct, otherwise they're going to have problems. Delaying release by even a few months is small compared to losing massive amounts of revenue due to bad launch reviews.


----------



## kd5151

skylake Q3 2015
broadwell-e Q2 2016
ryzen Q1 2017 hopefully.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> *They're not late for anything*. If what we've seen so far is true, Zen can stand on it's own both against Skylake and Broadwell-E, in performance and efficiency. They have to get the launch correct, otherwise they're going to have problems. Delaying release by even a few months is small compared to losing massive amounts of revenue due to bad launch reviews.


Are you for real? They haven't been in the CPU market for a decade practically, and you're saying they're not late for anything! They have to launch as soon as possible, they've had all the time in the world to make this, they seriously can't ask for more time, and it also won't do good at their market, 1/2 months won't even flip completely the reviews from bad to good, so...


----------



## Marios145

Btw you can put a Phenom/Athlon II on AM2+/AM3/AM3+ sockets. That's almost 10 years of motherboards.
If athlon 64 x2 had ddr3 memory support you would be able to use them on AM3. It's a physical limitation. Not artificial like intel's.


----------



## dmasteR

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814894218544037892
Quote:


> [RUMOR] Silicon lottery incoming. Is your RyZen CPU made by GlobalFoundries or by Samsung?


----------



## EightDee8D

This is getting into danger zone tbh. not sure if train is well made to handle upcoming SPEEEEED.


----------



## kd5151




----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814894218544037892


Looks like ill be paying more to get it at frys so i can see it first. Assuming some form of identification as to who produced it, and reviews showing a worthy overclocking difference.


----------



## caenlen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814894218544037892


samsung quality doesn't exactly mean it will OC better these days... the fact samsung can launch their note 7 phones TWICE even after a recall for blowing up batteries, says to me their legendary quality control has changed, I can understand once... but two recalls... eh, I may go with global foundries on purpose actually.


----------



## caswow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caenlen*
> 
> samsung quality doesn't exactly mean it will OC better these days... the fact samsung can launch their note 7 phones TWICE even after a recall for blowing up batteries, says to me their legendary quality control has changed, I can understand once... but two recalls... eh, I may go with global foundries on purpose actually.


yea who cares about all that stuff they put out before and after the note 7.


----------



## Techenthused73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> 'Intel inside '? I mean inside the car


lmao


----------



## flippin_waffles

How does an 8 core Ryzen competing with a 4 core Core whatever in lightly threaded games and apps with a better turbo implementation, and competing with 6 and 8 core Core whatever in multithreaded tasks for a similar price to intel's 4 core Core sound? I think that would sell very well.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen 8 core OC's all EIGHT COARZ to 5 Ghz on air!! And you can get the binned version that goes to 6GiggleHurtz for under $200!!!!!


Saw this and thought I should share here:


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Not to add too much fuel to the fire, but AMD was the first to break 1 Ghz.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Saw this and thought I should share here:


FX-9590 says hi.









(it's a joke guys)


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Not to add too much fuel to the fire, but AMD was the first to break 1 Ghz.


I remember hitting 1ghz on a Thunderbird with a goldfinger device. Wasn't stable though.


----------



## vectorman

Just saw this article on Hexus:
Quote:


> *Cryptic rumour points to air cooled AMD Ryzen hitting 5GHz*
> 
> This is a follow up to our story on Tuesday regarding the publishing of the first 'official' AMD Ryzen CPU (Engineering Sample) review by French tech print magazine Canard PC. Since the magazine has been out and pawed over by its purchasers, more details about Ryzen have come to light. However, the most stirring extra piece of information is mysteriously hidden inside a binary string printed nonchalantly above a feature image on page 10 of the magazine's printed article (see below).


Source


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vectorman*
> 
> Just saw this article on Hexus:
> Source


Already been posted and it's 1 Core @ 5Ghz on Air, not all 8.


----------



## pony-tail

Is anybody else hoping for a mini ITX board ( with all the bells and whistles ) for these ? sort of like the ROG impact boards .
I would buy one - I have Impact Vi ,Vii, Viii , have to get the AMD version too , cause - well just because !


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Is anybody else hoping for a mini ITX board ( with all the bells and whistles ) for these ? sort of like the ROG impact boards .
> I would buy one - I have Impact Vi ,Vii, Viii , have to get the AMD version too , cause - well just because !


Yup.


----------



## TrevBlu19

http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/ < -- Interesting Read.

EDIT: I think his guesstimate for prices are way too high. IMHO.


----------



## Ding Chavez

5GHz on air !!!

Now where have I heard that before... lol.

By all means hype away for the next few months.

1.21 jiggawatts for 200 dolla!


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814894218544037892


One of the benefits of GF licensing Sammy 14nm FF node was that both foundries could cover for each other. Eg. GF doing some apple stuff or Sammy helping if AMD orders are too big for GF. The second scenario seems plausible.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> FX-9590 says hi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (it's a joke guys)


I guess Zen replies burn baby burn.


----------



## IRobot23

FX 9590 doesnt have big cores... we could say that on 32nm ZEN core would be much larger than piledriver/bulldozer core. But there is no why to compare them, since different arch and node. I guess amd has knowledge how to get high clock.
I just hope that 14nmFF will be good at this point.

Look how small is Jaguar core on 28nm yet it can OC over 2.6GHz....


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/ < -- Interesting Read.
> 
> EDIT: I think his guesstimate for prices are way too high. IMHO.


I don't.


----------



## sumitlian

5 GHz is not enough for OCN. Lets see what happens when the chip falls on an OCNer's hands. I expect 5.2 GHz on Air.

/boosthypetrain


----------



## czin125

How likely is this on an AM4 board?

http://www.gskill.com/imgs/5/2804_574d8e1f2d348.jpg


----------



## Hattifnatten

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> How likely is this on an AM4 board?
> 
> http://www.gskill.com/imgs/5/2804_574d8e1f2d348.jpg


On a scale from one to ten.

Minus two. It says Z170 right there on the board


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> How likely is this on an AM4 board?
> 
> http://www.gskill.com/imgs/5/2804_574d8e1f2d348.jpg


Are you asking how likely it is an AM4 based system could match the Z170 you linked to? Easy answer, we have absolutely zero clue.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hattifnatten*
> 
> On a scale from one to ten.
> 
> Minus two. It says Z170 right there on the board


Was going to post that, but I can't imagine he really would be asking that with it in the picture







... I hope


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Yeah I think his prices seem on the money.

AMD is not a bargain basement company. They got to make some profit. Tbh if their 8-core is $100 cheaper than Intels equivalent it would be sweet.


----------



## renx

SR7 marketing strategy is heavily focused on gaming. Lisa didn't stop talking about gamers, gaming, and streaming.
I'd say $599 for the most expensive one. Could be even 500.


----------



## PiOfPie

Assuming that the performance is enough to back the marketing, it's a sound strategy. Self-described gamers tend to pay a higher price for things that they rightly or wrongly consider high-quality, thus AMD makes higher margins by selling to this demographic. They've tried playing the value market for a while, and they keep getting undermined by both OEMs who throw their chips in low-quality products and Intel with their rebates.

Plus Lisa's a bit of a gamer herself by report; she knows the market better than most suits do.


----------



## ecogen

The only price of his I don't like is the 6 core, rest look reasonable. I feel like AMD could hit a homerun by pricing it at mainstream i7 MSRP.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> Assuming that the performance is enough to back the marketing, it's a sound strategy. Self-described gamers tend to pay a higher price for things that they rightly or wrongly consider high-quality, thus AMD makes higher margins by selling to this demographic. They've tried playing the value market for a while, and they keep getting undermined by both OEMs who throw their chips in low-quality products and Intel with their rebates.
> 
> Plus Lisa's a bit of a gamer herself by report; she knows the market better than most suits do.


Yeah, with that playstation 4 in the home comment.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> SR7 marketing strategy is heavily focused on gaming. Lisa didn't stop talking about gamers, gaming, and streaming.
> I'd say $599 for the most expensive one. Could be even 500.


well gaming _is_ the biggest market for these consumer performance cpus


----------



## budgetgamer120

I like how people are under cover hoping AMD prices are high.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I like how people are under cover hoping AMD prices are high.


Because they could then be ripped for pricing too high. Did you not know AMD performance must exceed competition and price must be 1/3 of said competition. All in the name of lowering said competition's prices.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I like how people are under cover hoping AMD prices are high.


It's not that, I just take AMD at their word when they say they aren't going to be the value company anymore. I also know what their prices are like when they have a good product. They're not Intel expensive, but they're not cheap.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Because they could then be ripped for pricing too high. Did you not know AMD performance must exceed competition and price must be 1/3 of said competition. All in the name of lowering said competition's prices.


Exactly.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I like how people are under cover hoping AMD prices are high.


Trust me AMD dudes have the same hopes. Personally, I think we can accept the blackmarket takes over if AMD tries undercutting, so what you see is what you get.
PS: most people won't like the prices, but I won't be the one to point the finger at the people with the 400$ cpu who cannot livestream.


----------



## DNMock

So have astronomers confirmed that the mass and acceleration of this hype train is the largest in the known universe now?


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Trust me AMD dudes have the same hopes. Personally, I think we can accept the blackmarket takes over if AMD tries undercutting, so what you see is what you get.
> PS: most people won't like the prices, but I won't be the one to point the finger at the people with the 400$ cpu who cannot livestream.


If they are priced as the link indicated , there is no way I would buy one ( any of them ) .
I would not risk a premium price on an AMD product - if they over price it it will not do well .
I am in Australia so an $800 or $900 (US) product is going to equate to a $1300 or $1400 Aussie price just like video cards .
If they are that expensive I will buy the Intel enthusiast platform , AMD is just too risky to warrant top dollar .


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> If they are priced as the link indicated , there is no way I would buy one ( any of them ) .
> I would not risk a premium price on an AMD product - if they over price it it will not do well .
> I am in Australia so an $800 or $900 (US) product is going to equate to a $1300 or $1400 Aussie price just like video cards .
> If they are that expensive I will buy the Intel enthusiast platform , AMD is just too risky to warrant top dollar .


So if reviews show it warrants that price you won't buy it "coz AMD"?? *** kind of logic is that?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> If they are priced as the link indicated , there is no way I would buy one ( any of them ) .
> I would not risk a premium price on an AMD product - if they over price it it will not do well .
> I am in Australia so an $800 or $900 (US) product is going to equate to a $1300 or $1400 Aussie price just like video cards .
> If they are that expensive I will buy the Intel enthusiast platform , AMD is just too risky to warrant top dollar .
> 
> 
> 
> So if reviews show it warrants that price you won't buy it "coz AMD"?? *** kind of logic is that?
Click to expand...

1. AMD blew it bigtime with Bulldozer. They have one chance to make a comeback, and Zen is it.
2. Intel may not be making huge strides with their incremental Tick/Tock strategy, but they currently deliver a consistent high level of performance at reasonably known results.

Given this, if AMD tries too hard to be the "dollar equivalent" to Intel, they won't recapture enough market share to make the Zen comeback a winner all around.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 1. AMD blew it bigtime with Bulldozer. They have one chance to make a comeback, and Zen is it.
> 2. Intel may not be making huge strides with their incremental Tick/Tock strategy, but they currently deliver a consistent high level of performance at reasonably known results.
> 
> Given this, if AMD tries too hard to be the "dollar equivalent" to Intel, they won't recapture enough market share to make the Zen comeback a winner all around.


Agreed, but that is because of Intel's brand name, and it makes sense that the masses would want to stick with that given close price/performance between the two.

But that's different than a dude posting on an overclocking forum saying he won't pay top dollar for an AMD product even if it's worth it just because it's AMD.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/ < -- Interesting Read.
> 
> EDIT: I think his guesstimate for prices are way too high. IMHO.


Quote:


> $150-300 - quad-core Raven Ridge APUs (Ryzen RR3).
> $200-350 - quad-core Summit Ridge CPUs (Ryzen SR3).
> $400-500 - hexa-core Summit Ridge CPUs (Ryzen SR5).
> $500-650 - octa-core Summit Ridge CPUs (Ryzen SR7).
> $650-800 - octa-core Summit Ridge CPUs with the highest stock core frequencies, and also a watercooling kit (Ryzen SR9).


I think everything is 20-30% too high as well.

If the naming suggests the competitor then
SR3 will be up against i3 , so MSRP anywhere from $120-230 , so $150? (see Core i3-6320 , Core i3-4360 , i3-4100M , Core i3-6100)
SR5 will be up against i5 , so anywhere from $200-330 , so $250? (see Core i5-2500, Core i5-2550K , Core i5-3570 , i5-3570K , Core i5-4670 , i5-4690K , i5-4670R , Core i5-5675R, Core Core i5-6600 , Core i5-6600K , i5-6685R as well as i5-2540M , Core i5-3380M, i5-4340M , i5-5350H , i5-6350HQ , i5-6440HQ , Core i5-6287U , i5-7200U)
SR7 will be up against i7 , so anywhere from $400-1000

edit: if the SR5 is actually competing with mainstream i7s then it will likely be
RR3 against i3 , $120-230
SR3 up against i5, $200-330
SR5 up against i7 quadcore , $300-450 (MSRP $342 for i7-875K, $284 for i7-920 , $332 for i7-2700K , $294 for i7-3820, $313 for i7-3770K, $310 for Core i7-4820K, $339 for Core i7-4770K /i7-4790K, $366 for i7-5775C , $339 for Core i7-6700K, ALSO $389 for Core i7-5820K hexcore and $434 for Core i7-6800K hexcore)
SR7 up against i7 hexcore & octacore , $550-1000 (MSRP $583 for i7-980, $583 for i7-3930K , $555 for i7-4930K , $583 for Core i7-5930K , $1089 for Core i7-6900K *octacore* )


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> So have astronomers confirmed that the mass and acceleration of this hype train is the largest in the known universe now?


By my calculations the previous one was greater ... before it crashed. I mean we do not have atm JF-AMD putting napalm into the owen.


----------



## FLCLimax

Ideal pricing for Ryzen imo:

RR3 APUs: $149 - $219
Quad Core SR3: $259
Hexa Core SR5: $349
Octa Core SR7: $509
OCta Core SR9: $ 699


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> So if reviews show it warrants that price you won't buy it "coz AMD"?? *** kind of logic is that?


Intel is currently price gouging due to lack of competition especially in the "enthusiast" segment so what we need is competition not a second price gouger .
An item is only worth what the market perceives the value to be ( capitalism 101) regardless of reason I do not see the AMD to be worth that amount .
Intel has spent a lot on R&D and marketing , lawsuits etc to keep its "Brand" respected AMD has pushed forward with almost 10 years of mediocrity and tainted its "Brand" so Intel has the price of the product plus the goodwill - AMD has the price of the product ( + 0 for the goodwill )
I will buy AMD if it is at a good price but until AMD prove that they can consistently produce a market level product they have to price with a degree of aggression .
AMD , do not have - a good track record
- good brand recognition
- good level of honesty in their marketing
- and are not well trusted by their target market .
This will cost them in the final perceived value of their product .


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Intel is currently price gouging due to lack of competition especially in the "enthusiast" segment so what we need is competition not a second price gouger .
> An item is only worth what the market perceives the value to be ( capitalism 101) regardless of reason I do not see the AMD to be worth that amount .
> Intel has spent a lot on R&D and marketing , lawsuits etc to keep its "Brand" respected AMD has pushed forward with almost 10 years of mediocrity and tainted its "Brand" so Intel has the price of the product plus the goodwill - AMD has the price of the product ( + 0 for the goodwill )
> I will buy AMD if it is at a good price but until AMD prove that they can consistently produce a market level product they have to price with a degree of aggression .
> AMD , do not have - a good track record
> - good brand recognition
> - good level of honesty in their marketing
> - and are not well trusted by their target market .
> This will cost them in the final perceived value of their product .


And again, I would agree for the masses, unless AMD undercuts big time at similar performance they have no reason to switch, at least not right away. But I expect more from more informed people.

So I'll ask you this: IF you're in the market for an 8C/16T chip and AMD gives you the same performance as Intel at 5% to 10% less price, will you go with Intel?


----------



## raghu78

I think SR pricing range is likely to be USD 200 - USD 600. I think this is how it will be priced

SR3 (4C/8T) - USD 200 - USD 220
SR5 (6C/12T) - USD 300 - USD 320
SR7 (8C/16T) - USD 400- 450 / USD 600 (2 SKUs)

Such a pricing stack would allow AMD to cover the majority of the desktop CPU market. Raven Ridge APUs will cover the lower segment.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> And again, I would agree for the masses, unless AMD undercuts big time at similar performance they have no reason to switch, at least not right away. But I expect more from more informed people.
> 
> So I'll ask you this: IF you're in the market for an 8C/16T chip and AMD gives you the same performance as Intel at 5% to 10% less price, will you go with Intel?


I am and unless the AMD is significantly cheaper ( 20 to 30%) Intel will get my cash .
AMD is still a tarnished brand .
Further If Intel see AMD selling well they will drop their price .
Anyway the market will sort itself out - initial prices though very important will change due to market pressures - and AMD are not going to get market share with high prices ,


----------



## kd5151

price,availability and foundation.


----------



## Kuivamaa

AMD does not operate in a vacuum. There is a market leader (intel) with several products of known price and performance. AMD will most likely attack those price points head on but will not come anywhere near the 1100 price point claimed by 6900k (Lisa Su hinted that).

4C/8T ryzen vs i5 (150-250)
6C/12T ryzen vs i7 (260-400)
8C/12T ryzen vs X99 six cores(400-600)

All that provided that 6C/12T SKUs will exist. Apparently no such ES has been spotted.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 1. AMD blew it bigtime with Bulldozer. They have one chance to make a comeback, and Zen is it.
> 2. Intel may not be making huge strides with their incremental Tick/Tock strategy, but they currently deliver a consistent high level of performance at reasonably known results.
> 
> Given this, if AMD tries too hard to be the "dollar equivalent" to Intel, they won't recapture enough market share to make the Zen comeback a winner all around.


What does bulldozer have to do with anything?


----------



## mtcn77

I cannot tell if you people are cheap, or blind. I7 6950X is *1500$*: you know you are comparing against that, _right?_ "We are approaching the perimeter _- activate hype stabilizors!"_


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I cannot tell if you people are cheap, or blind. I7 6950X is *1500$*: you know you are comparing against that, _right?_ "We are approaching the perimeter _- activate hype stabilizors!"_


Ryzen 8 core was compared with the i7-6900k not the i7-6950X


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Ryzen 8 core was compared with the i7-6900k not the i7-6950X


Well, 6950X is not 1500$, too. I was modest.








Trust me I know the game. This is how I look right now:


----------



## H1vemind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Ideal pricing for Ryzen imo:
> RR3 APUs: $149 - $219
> Quad Core SR3: $259
> Hexa Core SR5: $349
> Octa Core SR7: $509
> OCta Core SR9: $ 699


Thing is this doesn't make sense from a business perspective, why sell the chip that is probably 40% larger thanks to that Igpu for less than the quad core SR3 which is more or less gaurenteed to be a salvage chip? They will be releasing the Apu parts late and prices might start to fall on the SR3 by then. expect the low end to resemble amd's current FM2+ lineup with the athlons at the very bottom of the pricing structure and the apu's filling the gap in between the SR3 and the SR5 cpu's.

This is how I would structure their lineup were I amd.

Start from top to bottom with the SR7's
Binned SR7 flagship ~$650
Various SR7 skews $470-550
SR5 skews $330-450
Launch the SR3 at $230-300 then drop that pricing down and launch the RR3's at the same price
once the RR3 is launched drop the SR3 skews to $170-250 (can market it as a sale and people would eat it up and at this point as it would be both close to the holdays and you would have an over abundance of 4C8T salvage chips from both the RR and the SR production processes).
Add some 2C4T skews based on salvaged RR3 chips to put in the sub $150 price point.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> So have astronomers confirmed that the mass and acceleration of this hype train is the largest in the known universe now?
> 
> 
> 
> By my calculations the previous one was greater ... before it crashed. I mean we do not have atm JF-AMD putting napalm into the owen.
Click to expand...

That's not really fair. Yes, JF-AMD bore the brunt of a lot of disappointment and frustration with the obvious mismatch between AMD's promises and the reality, but JF-AMD was very likely under stringent NDAs that required basically repeating whatever internal "spin" AMD wanted on the Bulldozer. If you remember, AMD very quickly focussed on IPC - Instructions Per Clock - in a strategy reminiscent of the way AthlonXP began decoupling absolute MHz/GHz measurements from what it was believed the CPU could actually perform like under certain conditions.

Of course this did not obviate the fact that even fixing OS schedulers could recover no more than ~5-10% of the performance loss even vis-a-vis Phenoms, so it was clear that AMD knew the architecture was at fault and JF-AMD may well have been in the loop on that, but to my recollection JF-AMD was not directly involved in the overall broad decision-making that led to the creation of Bulldozer in its particular way.

It is actually unfortunate that AMD chose to have a relatively prominent highly placed company worker/blogger give us a view into BD's production process, as Plato's-Cave-ian it may have been; at least we had a point of contact to ask questions of and also get info about testing, benchmarks, etc. We could use someone like that this time around.

Anyway I've wandered off topic, so all I'll say in conclusion is JF-AMD got dumped on a lot worse than should have happened, and NDAs do constrain what can be said or not said about in-progress CPU architectures.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Intel is currently price gouging due to lack of competition especially in the "enthusiast" segment so what we need is competition not a second price gouger .
> An item is only worth what the market perceives the value to be ( capitalism 101) regardless of reason I do not see the AMD to be worth that amount .
> Intel has spent a lot on R&D and marketing , lawsuits etc to keep its "Brand" respected AMD has pushed forward with almost 10 years of mediocrity and tainted its "Brand" so Intel has the price of the product plus the goodwill - AMD has the price of the product ( + 0 for the goodwill )
> I will buy AMD if it is at a good price but until AMD prove that they can consistently produce a market level product they have to price with a degree of aggression .
> AMD , do not have - a good track record
> - good brand recognition
> - good level of honesty in their marketing
> - and are not well trusted by their target market .
> This will cost them in the final perceived value of their product .


What nonsense.

So you don't give any reasons why you wouldn't buy one, just that the brand 'isn't as good as Intel's'. That seems to be your choice even if reviews for Ryzen are very good.

With a mindset like that you deserve a nightmarish one-brand future.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> So have astronomers confirmed that the mass and acceleration of this hype train is the largest in the known universe now?


Yes, it seems that the train has surpassed the speed of light.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> It's not that, I just take AMD at their word when they say they aren't going to be the value company anymore. I also know what their prices are like when they have a good product. They're not Intel expensive, but they're not cheap.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Intel is currently price gouging due to lack of competition especially in the "enthusiast" segment so what we need is competition not a second price gouger .
> An item is only worth what the market perceives the value to be ( capitalism 101) regardless of reason I do not see the AMD to be worth that amount .
> Intel has spent a lot on R&D and marketing , lawsuits etc to keep its "Brand" respected AMD has pushed forward with almost 10 years of mediocrity and tainted its "Brand" so Intel has the price of the product plus the goodwill - AMD has the price of the product ( + 0 for the goodwill )
> I will buy AMD if it is at a good price but until AMD prove that they can consistently produce a market level product they have to price with a degree of aggression .
> AMD , do not have - a good track record
> - good brand recognition
> - good level of honesty in their marketing
> - and are not well trusted by their target market .
> This will cost them in the final perceived value of their product .


Agreed and... mmh agreed


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> If they are priced as the link indicated , there is no way I would buy one ( any of them ) .
> I would not risk a premium price on an AMD product - if they over price it it will not do well .
> I am in Australia so an $800 or $900 (US) product is going to equate to a $1300 or $1400 Aussie price just like video cards .
> If they are that expensive I will buy the Intel enthusiast platform , AMD is just too risky to warrant top dollar .


Where has anybody said AMD is going to charge that much? I've consistently said I expect that the top binned Zen part will be $600.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Intel is currently price gouging due to lack of competition especially in the "enthusiast" segment so what we need is competition not a second price gouger .
> An item is only worth what the market perceives the value to be ( capitalism 101) regardless of reason I do not see the AMD to be worth that amount .
> Intel has spent a lot on R&D and marketing , lawsuits etc to keep its "Brand" respected AMD has pushed forward with almost 10 years of mediocrity and tainted its "Brand" so Intel has the price of the product plus the goodwill - AMD has the price of the product ( + 0 for the goodwill )
> I will buy AMD if it is at a good price but until AMD prove that they can consistently produce a market level product they have to price with a degree of aggression .
> AMD , do not have - a good track record
> - good brand recognition
> - good level of honesty in their marketing
> - and are not well trusted by their target market .
> This will cost them in the final perceived value of their product .


Okay, first of all, your timeline is screwed up. Ten years ago AMD was into a 6 year long rape session of Intel, without the benefit of lube. The first Bulldozer processor was released 5 years ago. Second of all, AMD didn't fail with Bulldozer because they couldn't execute, which isn't to say the architecture didn't have its faults, but because nobody on the software side was prepared to follow AMD on the road less traveled.

While you're busy lauding Intel for all the money and time they've spent to produce mediocre improvements, AMD has almost completely erased that lead on a new architecture, on a new node, and with technologies they've never tried before. Why do you think Intel's policy was Tick-Tock and is Process-Architecture-Optimization? Because their engineers are not capable of doing what it looks like AMD has done.

You spend your money how you want, though, because you earned it. Meanwhile, those of us who had K7 and K8 chips in their comps and remember the halcyon days are licking their chops and getting ready to bust some Intel domes with AMD bricks.


----------



## SuperZan

Oh, these 'tarnished brand' posts typed from within the mountain fastness of unassailable logic.

'I wouldn't buy an AMD processor at a lower price with the same performance as the competing Intel chip because of a processor AMD released five years ago.'

Because as we all know, a Zen system will lose performance on boot after the OS detects that AMD made Bulldozer once.

I would absolutely understand someone saying that they'd not consider AMD if they cannot achieve the absolute performance crown. For those who seek such performance, it makes complete sense to only pursue products which provide it. Someone not considering Zen even if proven as a performer, simply because Bulldozer exists, is operating off of brand-name considerations more than they are objective analysis. That's fine on a personal level, but let's not pretend that it's a valid approach in a wider context.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Oh, these 'tarnished brand' posts typed from within the mountain fastness of unassailable logic.
> 
> *'I wouldn't buy an AMD processor at a lower price with the same performance as the competing Intel chip* because of a processor AMD released five years ago.'
> 
> Because as we all know, a Zen system will lose performance on boot after the OS detects that AMD made Bulldozer once.
> 
> I would absolutely understand someone saying that they'd not consider AMD if they cannot achieve the absolute performance crown. For those who seek such performance, it makes complete sense to only pursue products which provide it. Someone not considering Zen even if proven as a performer, simply because Bulldozer exists, is operating off of brand-name considerations more than they are objective analysis. That's fine on a personal level, but let's not pretend that it's a valid approach in a wider context.


I'll be very honest here. Regarding the part in bold, if the comparable AMD CPU is only 5-10% cheaper, I'd definitely gravitate towards the Intel CPU. 20% cheaper and I'd be more inclined to pick up the AMD chip, and at a 30% discount I'd forget Intel even existed.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'll be very honest here. Regarding the part in bold, if the comparable AMD CPU is only 5-10% cheaper, I'd definitely gravitate towards the Intel CPU. 20% cheaper and I'd be more inclined to pick up the AMD chip, and at a 30% discount I'd forget Intel even existed.


Personally, unless there is something incredibly compelling on the comparable Intel platform I'd go with whichever costs less, especially if the total platform cost is lower for one or the other. When I want to build my next super-rig it will probably be with Skylake-X, but replacing what I've got now, if the leaks are accurate there just won't be enough to compel me to choose Intel over AMD if Zen's performance is there.


----------



## pony-tail

Can you people read !
I said I would buy it but at around 20% below Intel's current enthusiast price .
Read all of the post and then comment without getting defensive !
I have every intention of buying one or more if the hype train does not derail and the price is reasonable . ( by my measure not necessarily yours .)
until the final silicon is in the hands of real reviewers , it is all surmise .
As for 10 years what about the first Phenom with the TLB bug the downward slide started before Buldozer .
AMD started to lag when the core 2 intels came out - not just 5 years ago .
I have only been on Intel since Haswell came out and my last AMD was a piledriver - which my grandson is still using .
I was using AMD silicon before 1/2 on this forum were born .
@ SuperZan I thought after seeing your posts over the years that you would not be so quick to jump to conclusions .
I will buy what I consider the best buy for the least risk .
Anyway we will see when results from final silicon reach the web


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'll be very honest here. Regarding the part in bold, if the comparable AMD CPU is only 5-10% cheaper, I'd definitely gravitate towards the Intel CPU. 20% cheaper and I'd be more inclined to pick up the AMD chip, and at a 30% discount I'd forget Intel even existed.


I can understand $100 premium, but $1000! What currency are we trading, again? That is inflation right there.


----------



## czin125

X99 = DDR4 3466?
Z170 = DDR4 4133-4500
AM4 = ?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> X99 = DDR4 3466?
> Z170 = DDR4 4133-4500
> AM4 = ?


AM4 = 13370-69696 mhz. which unfortunately not out yet, just like AM4.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Personally, unless there is something incredibly compelling on the comparable Intel platform I'd go with whichever costs less, especially if the total platform cost is lower for one or the other. When I want to build my next super-rig it will probably be with Skylake-X, but replacing what I've got now, if the leaks are accurate there just won't be enough to compel me to choose Intel over AMD if Zen's performance is there.


Fair enough about the total platform cost. I guess for me a 5-10% savings just isn't compelling enough.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I can understand $100 premium, but $1000! What currency are we trading, again? That is inflation right there.


Huh? 6900K is $1000, and a $100 premium would mean a $900 Zen SR7 8-core chip, which is exactly what I said about not being enticing enough of a deal.

Edit: 369 rep! Alright nobody rep me again, EVER.


----------



## budgetgamer120

The 8 core Zen part won't cost more than $499 hopefully


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Why do you think Intel's policy was Tick-Tock and is Process-Architecture-Optimization? Because their engineers are not capable of doing what it looks like AMD has done.


There may be many reasons why Intel has not pushed the limits of CPU improvements recently, but I doubt one of them is because their engineers are not capable.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> There may be many reasons why Intel has not pushed the limits of CPU improvements recently, but I doubt one of them is because their engineers are not capable.


Yes, but even the IoT campaign? I can understand them employing the EEE on non-profitable line ups, but even those they were promoting?


----------



## Nickyvida

How much likely is Zthis going to be another JF AMD or BD?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Yes, but even the IoT campaign? I can understand them employing the EEE on non-profitable line ups, but even those they were promoting?


The IoT group had gross revenue of $689 million in 3Q (up 20%), compared to $1.3B total for AMD, so I'm not sure that can be considered a problem for Intel.

Edit: can't find their margins for that group but in 2015 it was about 20%, so presumably still profitable this year.


----------



## EightDee8D

And what about mobile market ? after spending billions they lost against arm. and now out from the market. such capable much wow.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The IoT group had gross revenue of $689 million in 3Q (up 20%), compared to $1.3B total for AMD, so I'm not sure that can be considered a problem for Intel.
> 
> Edit: can't find their margins for that group but in 2015 it was about 20%, so presumably still profitable this year.


I totally agree, I just responded to rumours I've heard that they were shutting it down. It just felt out of place.
PS: I'm sorry, I meant the _"wearables"_, not IoT as a whole.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> There may be many reasons why Intel has not pushed the limits of CPU improvements recently, but I doubt one of them is because their engineers are not capable.


It's no big secret that silicone is nearing it's end. I sincerely think that intel is either just experiencing massive diminishing returns R&D or they are just squeezing the last bits of blood out of silicone and been dumping large R&D into whatever comes next. Also note if you look at the server size of things, Intel has been making big gains every new release.


----------



## renx

It looks like Ryzen is provoking a sudden change of plans on Intel.

http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-refresh-coffee-lake-cfl-u-h-s-x/

Crazy, crazy news, if real. I guess great news for AMD.
Someone saves money and picks a kaby lake 7700k a few weeks from now, and the message they're getting from Intel is that the CPU is already gone and not worth.
I bet it will be rebuilt with better thermal compound and higher clocks, and probably a couple of small optimizations.

.


----------



## Olivon

Please respect yourself and others by avoid posting links for this site who just give false informations.
CFL is a 14nm+ chip and 10nm CNL will be late.
WCCFT is a shame and talk rubbish just to have clicks even if they had to fool people.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Please respect yourself and others by avoid posting links for this site who just give false informations.
> CFL is a 14nm+ chip and 10nm CNL will be late.
> WCCFT is a shame and talk rubbish just to have clicks even if they had to fool people.


Source is benchlife dot info, a website that I won't link for obvious reasons. But it was also posted on Guru3D, and other sites.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-cancles-kaby-lake-h-kaby-lake-refresh-will-be-core-ix-8000-series.html
Intel roadmap has changed all of a sudden, believe it or not. WCCFT credibility is out of the equation here.


----------



## Olivon

BenchLife never said that CFL was a 10nm chip. It's total BS from WCCFT again. This site is a shame and don't deserve ads/links here.

edit : here is a link from BenchLife :

http://benchlife.info/intel-coffee-lake-with-14nm-process-will-launch-2018-11192016/

They clearly talk about 14nm. Those guyz are totally clueless.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> BenchLife never said that CFL was a 10nm chip. It's total BS from WCCFT again. This site is a shame and don't deserve ads/links here.


You're missing the point, which is the sudden appearance of Kaby Lake Refresh in just a few months.
I couldn't care less about WCCFT reputation. Kaby Lake refresh is drawing my attention here.


----------



## Olivon

Sudden appearance ?

The link I give is from 19 november and talks about KBL-Referesh. Nothing new at all here except Intel ditch KBL-H.


----------



## renx

Was it discussed in this forum?
Most people here don't read Cantonese anyway.
I'm aware of the 14nm CFL. Even the grid at WCCFT is showing it as a 14nm part. So that was either uncaring writing or his memory failing.
The only thing that drew my attention is the Intel's roadmap change.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *warr10r*
> 
> Vulkan is better than DX12 in every way possible. Far better performance than both OpenGL and DX11. And its OS agnostic, so one day it will run on your phone as well.
> Yes. Far better. Also, it runs on Linux natively.
> No more easier/difficult than learning DX12.
> Pick an engine, any engine. UnrealEngine 4, CryEngine, Unity. Just about all major ones, I'd say.
> Um, no it really isn't the same performance than DX11, its better. Some games will support both DX12 and Vulkan as they are apparently pretty similar APIs.
> Yet Vulkan can run on Windows 7 and 8/8.1. One API rather than multiple? No-brainer!
> This is literally the only place that it makes sense to use DX12.
> I'm betting that game will be Star Citizen, but we are still a long way off for DX12 and Vulkan support.


No proof for any of those advantages, except maybe OpenGL vs vulkan.
And fact that it runs on linux, is meaningless unless everyone will start to develop to linux. Guess what is the status of that atm.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I was under the impression that everyone knew Vulkan was better than dx11 and 12


People assume that it is better. There has been no vulkan vs DX performance showdown in a single game.
The only place which truly showed us vulkan, was doom, and that is an OpenGL or vulkan only game.

There have been talks about adding vulkan support to other games. So far, nada.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> Vulkan is better then DX11 in the same way DX12 is, I E low level API, but also comes with the benefit of not being tied to microsoft's OS.


Proof. This is all air talk. Show me a game which was developed in DX11 and moved to vulkan and gained performance, or same performance but better visuals.
Except doom, no other game right now utilise vulkan.
The only real game with actual support for all of those (and even then, only in beta still), is Dota2, not really the game I would say have any advantage to either one. And when someone tested it, vulkan ended up being worse than DX11.

People keep missing the same point.
They talk about vulkan is being better like it is a scientific proven. It has not been, at all.
Unless you test them on equal terms, and not just unconfirmed rumours and hearsay, you can't just claim it.


----------



## dragneel

In my severely uneducated and uninformed opinion to be ignored entirely the pricing will scale as such:

SR3 $99-$179 (2 chips)

SR5 $249-$349 (2 chips)

SR7 $499-$849 (?????)

Or in Australian dollarydoos, $2000 each.

Edit: This is how I chose to waste my 500th post, and I'm a-ok with that.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> A lot of stuffs.


Vulkan is way better than dx11. It is a clean API with a lot of capabilities.

If you can't read a simple overview to understand why it is better then it is your problem :

https://www.khronos.org/assets/uploads/developers/library/overview/vulkan-overview.pdf

Also if you are into programming then you can easily see why it is better :

https://www.amazon.com/Vulkan-Programming-Guide-Official-Learning/dp/0134464540

Because there isn't any game except DOOM that uses Vulcan doesn't mean that Vulcan isn't miles ahead of directx11 in terms of capabilities.

An API mostly helps the developer not the consumer. The by product of a better API is better performance or quality for the end user. So we can't claim what API is better at the moment.


----------



## guttheslayer

I dont understand, so there is no more Kaby Lake this coming Q1?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I dont understand, so there is no more Kaby Lake this coming Q1?


What? No. According to the rumor, they are not going to make Kaby Lake H, which is the low-power BGA laptop chip, and there will be a Kaby Lake Refresh (possibly similar to the Haswell refresh) in late 2017.


----------



## iLeakStuff

https://mobile.twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814184127339655169


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> *Show me a game which was developed in DX11 and moved to vulkan and gained performance, or same performance but better visuals.
> Except doom, no other game right now utilise vulkan.*
> The only real game with actual support for all of those (and even then, only in beta still), is Dota2, not really the game I would say have any advantage to either one. And when someone tested it, vulkan ended up being worse than DX11.
> 
> People keep missing the same point.
> They talk about vulkan is being better like it is a scientific proven. It has not been, at all.
> Unless you test them on equal terms, and not just unconfirmed rumours and hearsay, you can't just claim it.


We can compare Doom to Crysis 3 and see that Doom performs a lot better and has more beautiful visuals. Take my example, Crysis 3 has a hard time maintaining 30fps even on low settings on my computer, whereas Doom runs at near constant 60fps at 720p on combination of medium-high settings.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/814184127339655169


That's really good news and explains Lisa Su's comment about a minimum of 3.4Ghz base clock.


----------



## kd5151

4.0 ghz base clock. am i rite?


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> 4.0 ghz base clock. am i rite?


For quad core


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dragneel*
> 
> In my severely uneducated and uninformed opinion to be ignored entirely the pricing will scale as such:
> 
> SR3 $99-$179 (2 chips)
> 
> SR5 $249-$349 (2 chips)
> 
> SR7 $499-$849 (?????)
> 
> Or in Australian dollarydoos, $2000 each.
> 
> Edit: This is how I chose to waste my 500th post, and I'm a-ok with that.


AMD cant afford to price the SR7 to high or people will just go X99 because it's known as reliable and stable.

HEY! were talking AMD not Intel here!!! more like $1500 Aussie







.

On a side note, anyone heard news on Ryzen for CES or is it just Vega?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Oh, these 'tarnished brand' posts typed from within the mountain fastness of unassailable logic.
> 
> 'I wouldn't buy an AMD processor at a lower price with the same performance as the competing Intel chip because of a processor AMD released five years ago.'
> 
> Because as we all know, a Zen system will lose performance on boot after the OS detects that AMD made Bulldozer once.
> 
> I would absolutely understand someone saying that they'd not consider AMD if they cannot achieve the absolute performance crown. For those who seek such performance, it makes complete sense to only pursue products which provide it. Someone not considering Zen even if proven as a performer, simply because Bulldozer exists, is operating off of brand-name considerations more than they are objective analysis. That's fine on a personal level, but let's not pretend that it's a valid approach in a wider context.


100% agreed. I cannot believe that on a site such as this that people act this way. Some of you act like Bulldozer was literally the only cpu AMD released and they are unreliable or have never had a solid cpu line up, Please do some research. CPU's are pretty much the most reliable electronic on the planet as far as a pc is concerned so why on earth would you sway towards one brand if you can get the identical performance for less?

I don't care if it's 1% cheaper, I'm going for it if it provides the same performance level.

Intel is not some mystical brand and some of you really treat them as if they have personally cured you of cancer while AMD has done nothing but drive in front of you and throw nails in the road for you to run over while laughing all the way.

I honestly don't get it. People like this are exactly why AMD can never gain proper market share. Just like the goons in retail shops or the "tech genius in the family" with their caveman talk of "AMD bad! Nvidia Intel good!".


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Intel is not some mystical brand and some of you really treat them as if they have personally cured you of cancer while AMD has done nothing but drive in front of you and throw nails in the road for you to run over while laughing all the way.


With inverted brands, i could tell the same about you and some others here


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> With inverted brands, i could tell the same about you and some others here


Only when those brands invert their market position too.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Only when those brands invert their market position too.


Nope, not necessarily

Even cause being with the "weak" has been the cool thing to do for quite some time now


----------



## dragneel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aussiejuggalo*
> 
> AMD cant afford to price the SR7 to high or people will just go X99 because it's known as reliable and stable.


Whatever any of us believe they should do doesn't really have any bearing on what they will do.
I think if they believe they have a comparable or better product, they're not going to undersell themselves, at least not by much.


----------



## Ultracarpet

I don't think the sr7 will be priced anywhere close to the 6900k. Even if the performance is super close, the x99 platform is inherently just more robust.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Nope, not necessarily
> 
> Even cause being with the "weak" has been the cool thing to do for quite some time now


but Intel isn't weak. so unless they become weak i don't see those same people switching to another "weak". so yes. they need to switch their market position too. otherwise it's just shifting the goalposts. not surprising at this point.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> With inverted brands, i could tell the same about you and some others here


When I bought my 4790k it was the fastest 4c8t cpu on the planet. When I bought my 290x on day one it was half the price of a Titan and matched or out performed it. I'm not concerned about brand, I only care for price/performance.

The fact that people are outright saying AMD has to be considerably cheaper even if they match the same exact performance of an Intel part is all you need to know regarding the bias AMD faces as far as gaining market share goes.


----------



## dragneel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> When I bought my 4790k it was the fastest 4c8t cpu on the planet. When I bought my 290x on day one it was half the price of a Titan and matched or out performed it. I'm not concerned about brand, I only care for price/performance.
> 
> The fact that people are outright saying AMD has to be considerably cheaper even if they match the same exact performance of an Intel part is all you need to know regarding the bias AMD faces as far as gaining market share goes.


Couldn't agree more. I think there are a lot of people here being very unreasonable in their expectations.

Not to say you can't hope for an amazing 8 core chip outperforming the comparative intel chip for $400, but it is completely unreasonable to expect it.

I'm hoping for a 6 core ryzen that outperforms the 6700k at a similar price to it, is it reasonable for me to expect that? No.

Ultimately if the processors perform on par and price is similar, what it really ought to come down to is the motherboards and the kinds of features you want. Anything else is absolutely silly.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dragneel*
> 
> Whatever any of us believe they should do doesn't really have any bearing on what they will do.
> I think if they believe they have a comparable or better product, they're not going to undersell themselves, at least not by much.


That's true.

Also though remember this CPU is AMD's first really competitive CPU since err Athlon? so they also cant take much of a chance on the pricing, if they price it to close to Intel even if performance wise it beats the 6900K in everything AMD still has a semi bad rep and well just look through this thread to see how many people aren't willing to take a chance on them because of the last few CPU's they released sucked compared to Intel.

For me personally even if they do price match Intel to within $100 - $200 but the SR7 performs close to the 6900K I'll be buying it, at least AMD don't do socket changes every 2 damn years and because its a "mainstream" platform it'll actually have ITX / MATX boards (biggest problem with x99 is the lack of MATX or I would of jumped on it already).


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> When I bought my 4790k it was the fastest 4c8t cpu on the planet. When I bought my 290x on day one it was half the price of a Titan and matched or out performed it. I'm not concerned about brand, I only care for price/performance.
> 
> The fact that people are outright saying AMD has to be considerably cheaper even if they match the same exact performance of an Intel part is all you need to know regarding the bias AMD faces as far as gaining market share goes.


I don't speak for other people, but for me personally, I consider Intel's offerings blatantly overpriced. Therefore, if AMD offers something with the same performance as Intel but only at a 5-10% discount, to me *that's still overpriced*. And if I had to choose between two similarly overpriced products, I'd naturally gravitate towards the more established brand. Which is why I said earlier at a 20% discount I'll start to seriously consider AMD, and at a 30% discount I wouldn't bother with Intel unless there was a very compelling reason to.

(and before anybody gives me the "Intel prices what the market will bear blah blah blah" crap, good for you. I don't give a damn because that's not the point)


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I don't speak for other people, but for me personally, I consider Intel's offerings blatantly overpriced. Therefore, if AMD offers something with the same performance as Intel but only at a 5-10% discount, to me *that's still overpriced*. And if I had to choose between two similarly overpriced products, I'd naturally gravitate towards the more established brand. Which is why I said earlier at a 20% discount I'll start to seriously consider AMD, and at a 30% discount I wouldn't bother with Intel unless there was a very compelling reason to.
> 
> (and before anybody gives me the "Intel prices what the market will bear blah blah blah" crap, good for you. I don't give a damn because that's not the point)


AMD has been around since 1969 and has been the only major competitor aside from Intel to stand the test of time in this sector, yet they are not established enough for you? What? This train of thought hurts consumers tremendously.

Quite frankly, you have absolutely zero room to talk about products being over priced if you are still willing to pay a higher price for literally the exact same product (hypothetically as far as the discussion at hand is concerned). The fact that you need a 20% discount for the same product to _maybe consider it_ doesn't scream problematic for the industry to you and completely against improved pricing?

People want the company with less than a quarter of the R&D budget to not only make an equivalent or better cpu, but they also now need to price it 30% lower to sway consumers? What kind of bizzaro world do some of you live in thinking this is sustainable for any company in that position? This will only strengthen the company that has been sandbagging performance for quite a while now.

I can't believe this kind of sentiment is on this site, really boggles my mind considering the initial purpose of overclocking was getting the same or more while paying less. Personal opinion or not, it's just is crazy to me.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> AMD has been around since 1969 and has been the only major competitor aside from Intel to stand the test of time in this sector, yet they are not established enough for you? What?


AMD should have never branched out from making cartridges to general processors. That way, console peasantry would have never taken the epic proportions it is today. It is all their fault.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> AMD has been around since 1969 and has been the only major competitor aside from Intel to stand the test of time in this sector, yet they are not established enough for you? What? This train of thought hurts consumers tremendously.
> 
> Quite frankly, you have absolutely zero room to talk about products being over priced if you are still willing to pay a higher price for literally the exact same product (hypothetically as far as the discussion at hand is concerned). The fact that you need a 20% discount for the same product to _maybe consider it_ doesn't scream problematic for the industry to you and completely against improved pricing?
> 
> People want the company with less than a quarter of the R&D budget to not only make an equivalent or better cpu, but they also now need to price it 30% lower to sway consumers? What kind of bizzaro world do some of you live in thinking this is sustainable for any company in that position? This will only strengthen the company that has been sandbagging performance for quite a while now.


Would "with a better recent track record" instead of "more established" have made you happier? But we'd just be arguing semantics then, and I'm not interested in that kind of argument.

You also completely missed my point. The 20%/30% figure simply tells you how much overpriced I consider Intel's products to be. So, if AMD comes up with something that's 20-25% overpriced, that's still very unattractive as far as I'm concerned. And if I were forced to overpay for overpriced products, I'd rather not take any chances, because there's no such thing as "literally the same product".
Quote:


> I can't believe this kind of sentiment is on this site, really boggles my mind considering the initial purpose of overclocking was getting the same or more while paying less. Personal opinion or not, it's just is crazy to me.


Ok and what if after overclocking Zen came up short compared to the Intel SKU it's supposed to compete against, then what?

I mean ok yes sure, in an ideal world where AMD made *literally* the same product as Intel that had identical performance/OC headroom under every single usage scenario conceivable, and it was "only" 5-10% cheaper, then sure I'd buy the AMD product.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I mean ok yes sure, in an ideal world where AMD made *literally* the same product as Intel that had identical performance/OC headroom under every single usage scenario conceivable, and it was "only" 5-10% cheaper, then sure I'd buy the AMD product.
> 
> (and yes I'm well aware of Intel's Netbust and AMD's Athlon era before you give me another history lecture)


That is completely fair and I agree with it. If overclocking headroom is known to be higher on Intel's cpu and it edges AMD's offerings out, then by all means if the price difference is minor and you feel the performance is worth it then go for it. Nothing wrong with that. Obviously neither will offer an identical product, both will have pros and cons so it's up to the consumer to decide based on the merits of that said product.

However, it seems to me a lot of the sentiment popping up around these cpu's lately is that yes, even if AMD offered an exact replica of the same Intel cpu in all aspects, people still wouldn't buy it unless offered at essentially clearance pricing.

On a side note, yes the Athlon vs Netburst debate is ancient history at this point, but it does go to show just how much is playing against AMD actually making a proper return in the segment. The A64 and A64 x2 were excellent and market share while far better than these days, was still an absolute joke despite offering the clearly superior product by far.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> That is completely fair and I agree with it. If overclocking headroom is known to be higher on Intel's cpu and it edges AMD's offerings out, then by all means if the price difference is minor and you feel the performance is worth it then go for it. Nothing wrong with that. Obviously neither will offer an identical product, both will have pros and cons so it's up to the consumer to decide based on the merits of that said product.
> 
> *However, it seems to me a lot of the sentiment popping up around these cpu's lately is that yes, even if AMD offered an exact replica of the same Intel cpu in all aspects, people still wouldn't buy it unless offered at essentially clearance pricing.*
> 
> On a side note, yes the Athlon vs Netburst debate is ancient history at this point, but it does go to show just how much is playing against AMD actually making a proper return in the segment. The A64 and A64 x2 were excellent and market share while far better than these days, was still an absolute joke despite offering the clearly superior product by far.


I agree that kind of mentality certainly exists and I've seen it around here as well.

The bottom line for me is I just want something to be priced "fairly". Obviously as a consumer my definition of "fair" will be very different from any corporation's definition. But AMD at least has a much better track record of not going completely off-the-rails with regards to pricing, and I'm hoping they'll continue said trend.

As far as Athlon vs P4 is concerned, Intel did have to bribe companies pretty heavily to not use the superior AMD product, so that's at least a tacit (and completely underhanded) admission of defeat.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> AMD has been around since 1969 and has been the only major competitor aside from Intel to stand the test of time in this sector, yet they are not established enough for you? What? This train of thought hurts consumers tremendously.
> 
> Quite frankly, you have absolutely zero room to talk about products being over priced if you are still willing to pay a higher price for literally the exact same product (hypothetically as far as the discussion at hand is concerned). The fact that you need a 20% discount for the same product to _maybe consider it_ doesn't scream problematic for the industry to you and completely against improved pricing?
> 
> People want the company with less than a quarter of the R&D budget to not only make an equivalent or better cpu, but they also now need to price it 30% lower to sway consumers? What kind of bizzaro world do some of you live in thinking this is sustainable for any company in that position? This will only strengthen the company that has been sandbagging performance for quite a while now.
> 
> I can't believe this kind of sentiment is on this site, really boggles my mind considering the initial purpose of overclocking was getting the same or more while paying less. Personal opinion or not, it's just is crazy to me.


AMD does come with a certain risk , Even if their raw performance is up there with Intel , Is their platform up to snuff , is it going to be stable , what about chipset drivers , and their peripheral attachment ( usb etc implementations ) we do not know , and will not know for a while after release , They need to build peoples confidence in their product before they can effectively demand a premium price .
Yes if the price is ok I will buy into this platform , further it may fill a niche that intel has so far not , An 8 core 16 thread cpu on a mini -Itx platform and have a TDP low enough for it to work . ( I am hoping anyway ) - find out in a couple of months .


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> AMD does come with a certain risk , Even if their raw performance is up there with Intel , Is their platform up to snuff , is it going to be stable , what about chipset drivers , and their peripheral attachment ( usb etc implementations ) we do not know , and will not know for a while after release , They need to build peoples confidence in their product before they can effectively demand a premium price .
> Yes if the price is ok I will buy into this platform , further it may fill a niche that intel has so far not , An 8 core 16 thread cpu on a mini -Itx platform and have a TDP low enough for it to work . ( I am hoping anyway ) - find out in a couple of months .


This argument is just fantasy.

There is no reason what-so-ever to suggest that AMD chipsets will somehow inhibit performance or a user. Especially on the newest CPU architecture in over a decade!

People need to stop pulling out this chipset "concern" as it is bullocks.


----------



## AmericanLoco

The only really major thing AMD was lacking was native PCI-E 3.0 and USB3 support on AM3, but neither one of those were significant issues. i'm pretty sure the last platform to have some kind of real fatal flaw was Intel back in the SB days. Their chipset SATA controller would fail.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> This argument is just fantasy.
> 
> There is no reason what-so-ever to suggest that AMD chipsets will somehow inhibit performance or a user. Especially on the newest CPU architecture in over a decade!
> 
> People need to stop pulling out this chipset "concern" as it is bullocks.


We will not know until it has been in use for a while - we do not even know if there are any known errata or bugs - basically until silicon is in the hands of the consumers it is all hypothetical - mainly just hype !


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> We will not know until it has been in use for a while - we do not even know if there are any known errata or bugs - basically until silicon is in the hands of the consumers it is all hypothetical - mainly just hype !


They've been making x86 cpus since 1979 you know. They know what they are doing


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> This argument is just fantasy.
> 
> There is no reason what-so-ever to suggest that AMD chipsets will somehow inhibit performance or a user. Especially on the newest CPU architecture in over a decade!
> 
> People need to stop pulling out this chipset "concern" as it is bullocks.


Pretty much this. There is also my point of view which demonstrates AMD has other things going for them. I was set on going X99 on a BW-E hexacore. Zen made me wait since there is a chance I'll be getting similar ST performance,8 cores at the price of 6 and a socket that will possibly see upgrades instead if a guaranteed dead one (2011 has been around for 6 years almost).


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> They've been making x86 cpus since 1979 you know. They know what they are doing


Exactly. It's like some people think AMD only started making CPUs with the Athlon 64.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> They know what they are doing


Can't really say so for the last ~10 years


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Here is a review from 2009 (within your ten years) on an AMD cpu that competed against the intel CPU is was priced against
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-x4-965,review-31655.html


Losing most of the time by drawing much power, and having higher temperature, than intel's first i7 series, isn't really competing, even cause shortly later (a month or so) intel released SB, so they were even behind in terms of release, price? Yeah probably, as always AMD has the upper hand there.

No, to really see the 2 compete, you need go go back 2/3 years still, so we're around 10 years ago, yes.

also surely back then, it's not the worst AMD has done, but that's the starting of it


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Losing most of the time by drawing much power, and having higher temperature, than intel's first i7 series, isn't really competing, even cause shortly later (a month or so) intel released SB, so they were even behind in terms of release, price? Yeah probably, as always AMD has the upper hand there.
> 
> No, to really see the 2 compete, you need go go back 2/3 years still, so we're around 10 years ago, yes.
> 
> also surely back then, it's not the worst AMD has done, but that's the starting of it


SB released on january 2011.....


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> SB released at january 2011.....


Yeah, that was my mistake, sorry, i was misled by this

_"We're less than a month away from Intel's LGA 1156 Core i5/i7 launch, though, and AMD's willingness to discount CPUs and motherboards is perhaps indicative of the potential impact the new platform might have. AMD wants to sell as many processors as it can between now and then-before competitive pressure compels it to possibly engage in a pricing battle."_


----------



## kd5151

Linustechtips has a video that came out a couple days ago about the last 10 years of Intel flagship cpus. Also made a video about ryzen also.


----------



## mcg75

*Re-opened.

Guys, this was a great discussion until some personal attacks derailed it.

If you can't debate someone without personal comments, please just don't do it. It's not fair to the rest of the users who can.

Thanks.*


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> They've been making x86 cpus since 1979 you know. They know what they are doing


A lot of those early years they were just making Intel clones though (still remember having an AMD 486DX4). Not sure when they switched to their own designs, mid 90s? The Durans and Thunderbird were their own, not sure about before that.

Edit: looks like it was the K5 in 1996, so my memory of the timeframe was right, just off on the model names. The K6 was a big hit (and they switched to the advanced 250nm process), I remember that.


----------



## EightDee8D

The last time any x86 cpu maker had chipset problem, was INTEL.







and so called "faildozer" had no issues. so please, buzz off with that nonsense.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> They've been making x86 cpus since 1979 you know. They know what they are doing
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of those early years they were just making Intel clones though (still remember having an AMD 486DX4). Not sure when they switched to their own designs, mid 90s? The Durans and Thunderbird were their own, not sure about before that.
> 
> Edit: looks like it was the K5 in 1996, so my memory of the timeframe was right, just off on the model names. The K6 was a big hit (and they switched to the advanced 250nm process), I remember that.
Click to expand...

I remember when Duron first came out and LOLed because it's the name of a floor tile.









It eventually did redeem itself as a good workhorse CPU though.


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I remember when Duron first came out and LOLed because it's the name of a floor tile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It eventually did redeem itself as a good workhorse CPU though.


Especially with a pencil mod


----------



## Asisvenia

After the 6 years sleeping on the rock they have to take some market share from Intel. There is no another way! Have some share on the market or be destroyed ! Their last cpu series Bulldozer FX believe it or not one of the most failest cpu series we've ever seen.. Single core performance was terrible and it was causing the poor min. frames rates in the games.

I wonder is there anyone using Fx 83xx 4.5-5ghz o.ced with enthusiast GPU ?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/ < -- Interesting Read.
> EDIT: I think his guesstimate for prices are way too high. IMHO.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/ < -- Interesting Read.
> EDIT: I think his guesstimate for prices are way too high. IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Yeah I think his prices seem on the money.
> 
> AMD is not a bargain basement company. They got to make some profit. Tbh if their 8-core is $100 cheaper than Intels equivalent it would be sweet.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> The only price of his I don't like is the 6 core, rest look reasonable. I feel like AMD could hit a homerun by pricing it at mainstream i7 MSRP.


Thank you for reading.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez*
> 
> 5GHz on air !!!
> 
> Now where have I heard that before... lol.
> 
> By all means hype away for the next few months.
> 
> 1.21 jiggawatts for 200 dolla!


5.00 GHz on a single-core with an air cooler is currently a rumor floating around. 5.00 GHz on all cores on air is most definitely out of the question.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I like how people are under cover hoping AMD prices are high.


No one is undercover, nor are they hoping for anything.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> I think everything is 20-30% too high as well.
> 
> If the naming suggests the competitor then
> SR3 will be up against i3 , so MSRP anywhere from $120-230 , so $150? (see Core i3-6320 , Core i3-4360 , i3-4100M , Core i3-6100)
> SR5 will be up against i5 , so anywhere from $200-330 , so $250? (see Core i5-2500, Core i5-2550K , Core i5-3570 , i5-3570K , Core i5-4670 , i5-4690K , i5-4670R , Core i5-5675R, Core Core i5-6600 , Core i5-6600K , i5-6685R as well as i5-2540M , Core i5-3380M, i5-4340M , i5-5350H , i5-6350HQ , i5-6440HQ , Core i5-6287U , i5-7200U)
> SR7 will be up against i7 , so anywhere from $400-1000
> 
> edit: if the SR5 is actually competing with mainstream i7s then it will likely be
> RR3 against i3 , $120-230
> SR3 up against i5, $200-330
> SR5 up against i7 quadcore , $300-450 (MSRP $342 for i7-875K, $284 for i7-920 , $332 for i7-2700K , $294 for i7-3820, $313 for i7-3770K, $310 for Core i7-4820K, $339 for Core i7-4770K /i7-4790K, $366 for i7-5775C , $339 for Core i7-6700K, ALSO $389 for Core i7-5820K hexcore and $434 for Core i7-6800K hexcore)
> SR7 up against i7 hexcore & octacore , $550-1000 (MSRP $583 for i7-980, $583 for i7-3930K , $555 for i7-4930K , $583 for Core i7-5930K , $1089 for Core i7-6900K *octacore* )


There's no indication that SR3 aligns with Core i3, SR5 with Core i5 and SR7 with Core i7.

AMD has its own product stack. Intel has its own product stack. They don't necessarily have to correlate with each other, even if it would make sense to do so.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> I wonder is there anyone using Fx 83xx 4.5-5ghz o.ced with enthusiast GPU ?


Please define what you mean by "enthusiast GPU."


----------



## bmgjet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> After the 6 years sleeping on the rock they have to take some market share from Intel. There is no another way! Have some share on the market or be destroyed ! Their last cpu series Bulldozer FX believe it or not one of the most failest cpu series we've ever seen.. Single core performance was terrible and it was causing the poor min. frames rates in the games.
> 
> I wonder is there anyone using Fx 83xx 4.5-5ghz o.ced with enthusiast GPU ?


I used a 8350 at 4.8ghz with 980ti then 980ti sli setup before I swapped to this 5820K setup.
Honestly if I knew the difference was going to be as small as it was I wouldnt of bothered upgrading but every one on here when I was asking if it was a worth while upgrade insisted it was.

I only play BF4/BF1 mainly. and CS:GO/Doom if EA having problems.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmgjet*
> 
> I used a 8350 at 4.8ghz with 980ti then 980ti sli setup before I swapped to this 5820K setup.
> Honestly if I knew the difference was going to be as small as it was I wouldnt of bothered upgrading but every one on here when I was asking if it was a worth while upgrade insisted it was.
> 
> I only play BF4/BF1 mainly. and CS:GO/Doom if EA having problems.


If you have any self-respect, you can pass over him. He is just branching out after Nvidia shut down his quarters.


----------



## bmgjet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> If you have any self-respect, you can pass over him. He is just branching out after Nvidia shut down his quarters.


Im waiting to be told a 980ti isnt a enthusiast GPU anymore.


----------



## magnek

980ti isn't a enthusiast GPU anymore.


----------



## Fancykiller65

Isn't a overclocked 980Ti the same as a stock 1070?


----------



## flopper

4.2-4,4ghz is the baseline as far.
Has everything I want.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 980ti isn't a enthusiast GPU anymore.


[Source] Interesting read.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I don't speak for other people, but for me personally, I consider Intel's offerings blatantly overpriced. Therefore, if AMD offers something with the same performance as Intel but only at a 5-10% discount, to me *that's still overpriced*. And if I had to choose between two similarly overpriced products, I'd naturally gravitate towards the more established brand. Which is why I said earlier at a 20% discount I'll start to seriously consider AMD, and at a 30% discount I wouldn't bother with Intel unless there was a very compelling reason to.
> 
> (and before anybody gives me the "Intel prices what the market will bear blah blah blah" crap, good for you. I don't give a damn because that's not the point)


How is Intel a more established brand than AMD?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> [Source] Interesting read.


It's meant to be a joke.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> It's meant to be a joke.





Spoiler: A Short History of Humour Comprehension on OCN


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> It's meant to be a joke.


I'm literal.




Spoiler: Direct3D 10: Tests pixel shader PS 4.0 (texturing, loops)



Quote:


> The new graphics card models GeForce GTX 1080 is already ahead of the GTX 980 Ti model on the whole 32-40%, which is close to the difference between what we expect from it.


Quote:


> The diagram on the whole similar to the previous (also without including supersampling), and this time the new model of GeForce GTX 1080 was only slightly faster than GTX 980 Ti and faster direct predecessor.


Quote:


> Compared with the previous generation of Nvidia solutions, new product showed the rate of a quarter faster than GeForce GTX 980 Ti and GTX 980 ahead at half time - it seems that something like this will be a real difference between Nvidia solutions in gaming applications.









Spoiler: Direct3D 10: Tests pixel shader PS 4.0 (computing)



Quote:


> In the second test of our math RigthMark we see we are more or less similar to the real situation of cards to each other. Thus, the new model GeForce GTX 1080 this time by 7% ahead of the GTX 980 Ti and much faster than the direct predecessor GTX 980.









Spoiler: Direct3D 10: Geometry Shader Tests



Quote:


> The new model GeForce GTX 1080 is almost behind the GTX 980 Ti in simple terms, ahead of top-end fee of the previous generation in the complex at 11%,


Quote:


> The new graphics card based on the chip GP104 was slightly faster than the previous top-end solutions GeForce GTX 980 Ti, GTX 980 and lost to them both seriously, especially in difficult conditions.


Quote:


> Indeed, in such circumstances, the results of Nvidia's graphics cards seriously changed, and the GTX 980 not only tightened to the GTX 980 Ti and GTX 1080, and became the best in the most simple terms. However, in the other two modes, won the previous top of GTX 980 Ti, and the new 1080 GTX loses her a few percent in this test.









Spoiler: Direct3D 10: speed sampling vertex texture



Quote:


> The new model GeForce GTX 1080 under difficult conditions showed a velocity close to the GTX 980 Ti, a little ahead of GTX 980.


Quote:


> However, R9 390X was faster than both of them. But the novelty was the best among the three considered GeForce, heavy duty ahead of GTX 980 Ti by as much as 21%.


Quote:


> With the increasing complexity of the task in the second test texel rate of all solutions was lower, and Nvidia graphics card slightly more affected. Therefore, the conclusions do not change, even though the new model GeForce GTX 1080 has up to 33% faster than the best graphics card from the previous generation of Maxwell.









Spoiler: Feature Test 1: Texture Fill



Quote:


> The difference in speed between the GeForce GTX 980 Ti and GTX 1080 was almost polutorakratnoy in favor of a fresh decision on the basis of Pascal chip architecture, and this is clearly greater than the theoretical difference - probably affect some optimization.









Spoiler: Feature Test 2: Color Fill



Quote:


> We are considering today, board GeForce GTX 1080 significantly ahead of all other comparisons of graphics cards. The best of the rest of Nvidia cards behind not so much about a third, and a direct predecessor and did more than one and a half times slower trends.









Spoiler: Feature Test 3: Parallax Occlusion Mapping



Quote:


> In this case, important and mathematical and textured performance, and in this "synthetic" from 3DMark Vantage new card GeForce GTX 1080 showed a great result, being one and a half times faster than the top-end of the previous generation model, based on the basis of the best GPU architecture Maxwell - GTX 980 Ti.









Spoiler: Feature Test 4: GPU Cloth



Quote:


> In this test, another new Nvidia graphics card showed a low rate even slightly behind it its direct predecessor, the GTX 980. However, the GTX 980 Ti is behaving in this test is even worse ...









Spoiler: Feature Test 5: GPU Particles



Quote:


> The new single-chip motherboard GeForce GTX 1080 at this time has become a leader in comparison, more than 20% ahead of the previous generation of top-end card GTX 980 Ti,









Spoiler: Feature Test 6: Perlin Noise



Quote:


> It is clear that if we compare the novelty with the previous models of the company from the family of GeForce GTX 900, in this test, the difference is huge. Considered card today showed the result of a third better than the GTX 980 Ti









Spoiler: Direct3D 11: Computational Shaders



Quote:


> The novelty of the model GeForce GTX 1080 in this test and a half times ahead of GTX 980 Ti - top model of the previous generation.









Spoiler: Direct3D 11: Tessellation Performance



Quote:


> The first partition coefficient triangles, speed is not limited to the performance of geometric blocks, so the top-end graphics card Radeon shows a rather good result, close to that of GeForce GTX 980 Ti.


Quote:


> Maxwell GPUs and so quite effectively operate in a mixed mode loading, switching from the execution of the tasks of graphic computing, but Pascal had this possibility further improvements as we realized on the theoretical part. Perhaps that is why the new card GeForce GTX 1080 and ahead of GTX 980 Ti is approximately twice, and it was quite unexpected.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> Isn't a overclocked 980Ti the same as a stock 1070?


A Overclocked 980Ti actually beats a overclocked 1070....


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I'm literal.


So instead of link spamming, learn to take a joke.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So instead of link spamming, learn to take a joke.


What build do I require? Str, dex, or int?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> How is Intel a more established brand than AMD?


Surely that's not a serious question.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Surely that's not a serious question.


Do you know what established means? Established doesnt mean one with the better product

So yes it is a serious question.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Do you know what established means? Established doesnt mean one with the better product
> 
> So yes it is a serious question.


So establishing the personal computer industry by inventing the x86 microprocessor isn't enough?

Edit: and it was also established as a company first, if you decide that's the new metric.

Edit2: and if you decide it's more established brand, I'd wager Intel Inside is more well known than pretty much anything else in the computer world.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So establishing the personal computer industry by inventing the x86 microprocessor isn't enough?
> 
> Edit: and it was also established as a company first, if you decide that's the new metric.
> 
> Edit2: and if you decide it's more established brand, I'd wager Intel Inside is more well known than pretty much anything else in the computer world.


And who established the better x64 industry?

Good try...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> And who established the better x64 industry?
> 
> Good try...


Okay, since you obviously want to believe it is AMD, you go ahead and do you.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Okay, since you obviously want to believe it is AMD, you go ahead and do you.


Neither is more established than the other. Intel has better products for a while now.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Neither is more established than the other. Intel has better products for a while now.


Intel is the one of most recognized brand name in computer industry as a whole, i don't even know what you trying to argue lol. You wouldn't believe how many people don't even know what AMD is.


----------



## kx11

so this Ryzen line up seems to be windows 10 exclusive ?!

Kaby Lake too

say hello to 2017


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> so this Ryzen line up seems to be windows 10 exclusive ?!
> 
> Kaby Lake too
> 
> say hello to 2017


It was said a while ago that most new hardware would be Windows 10 only. Well Windows 10, Linux & Mac.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Intel is the one of most recognized brand name in computer industry as a whole, i don't even know what you trying to argue lol. You wouldn't believe how many people don't even know what AMD is.


Maybe on yours side of the planet.

Besides the context of the argument was not about which brand is well known by everyone.

Read before entering a debate, it helps.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Maybe on yours side of the planet.
> 
> Besides the context of the argument was not about which brand is well known by everyone.
> 
> Read before entering a debate, it helps.


Having more "Established" brand has lot to do with brand recognition.
I don't even know why you are trying to twist the definition of what "established" brand means.
And I am sure you can argue without resorting to low level attacks.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Intel is without a doubt the most established brand between the two. While they haven't been around as long, they absolutely control both the mind share and financial share of the consumer.

That simply can't be argued.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Intel is the one of most recognized brand name in computer industry as a whole, i don't even know what you trying to argue lol. You wouldn't believe how many people don't even know what AMD is.


do you really believe there are people in the computer industry who dont know who AMD is?

[edit] unless you are talking about Joe Blow, then yes but youd be surprised how many Joe Blow's dont know who intel is either.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> do you really believe there are people in the computer industry who dont know who AMD is?


Did i say people in the computer industry? I said it as in people in general. There are lot of people who doesn't know what Nvidia or AMD is, especially if they don't care about the computer industry in general.
Don't drag me down to fanboy level argument lol.


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Did i say people in the computer industry? I said it as in people in general. There are lot of people who doesn't know what Nvidia or AMD is, especially if they don't care about the computer industry in general.
> Don't drag me down to fanboy level argument lol.


yeah lol which is why the post was edited..


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Intel is without a doubt the most established brand between the two. While they haven't been around as long, they absolutely control both the mind share and financial share of the consumer.
> 
> That simply can't be argued.


Again that is not the context of the argument.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Again that is not the context of the argument.


Then you shouldn't have started the argument with "How is Intel a more established brand than AMD?" You are basically arguing against generally accepted definition of what "established brand" is.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Intel is without a doubt the most established brand between the two. While they haven't been around as long, they absolutely control both the mind share and financial share of the consumer.
> 
> That simply can't be argued.


Intel has been around since founded by Gordon Moore in 1968 -
AMD was founded in 1969 by Jerry Sander and some guys from Fairchild semiconductor .
So Intel came first ( just )


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> so this Ryzen line up seems to be windows 10 exclusive ?!
> 
> Kaby Lake too
> 
> say hello to 2017


Only as far as driver support is concerned. It's quite possible to install Windows 8.1 or Windows 7 on Kaby Lake, you'd just need the drivers for USB, the chipset, and SATA. Also, depending on the mode that the system's SSD runs in, you may have issues there which requires a custom driver. ASUS Ultrabooks shipping with Kaby Lake using NVMe drives have that issue with older Windows versions and Linux distributions with recent kernels.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> Only as far as driver support is concerned. It's quite possible to install Windows 8.1 or Windows 7 on Kaby Lake, you'd just need the drivers for USB, the chipset, and SATA. Also, depending on the mode that the system's SSD runs in, you may have issues there which requires a custom driver. ASUS Ultrabooks shipping with Kaby Lake using NVMe drives have that issue with older Windows versions and Linux distributions with recent kernels.


no the bigger problem is kernel support for new architecture features, like amd's SMT. hyperthreading also required an upgrade to win 7 in its time to work properly...of course win 7 was worth it by itself unlike win 10


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> no the bigger problem is kernel support for new architecture features, like amd's SMT. hyperthreading also required an upgrade to win 7 in its time to work properly...of course win 7 was worth it by itself unlike win 10


IIRC it wasn't that it wasn't working, it was the Windows scheduler that had a bias towards keeping threads hopping all about the place, rather than properly predicting which cores a workload should be attached to. The Bulldozer scheduler patch is summed up by Anandtech in this image:



If Zen's SMT approach is anything like Intel's, it should be able to work just fine on at least Windows 8.1. The gains from the Bulldozer patch were miniscule anyway. The architecture and the software landscape it found itself in was incompatible, and success wasn't guaranteed.


----------



## cirov

so i play video games where only single thread performance matters really. Will it be worth upgrading my 4.8ghz 3570k to zen?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cirov*
> 
> so i play video games where only single thread performance matters really. Will it be worth upgrading my 4.8ghz 3570k to zen?


Until we see any single-thread benchmarks, and have a better understanding of XFR in action, no one can truly give you a reliable answer. Ask the question again after CES (assuming there are XFR demonstrations there).


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Surely that's not a serious question.


AMD has participated as a console game cartridge supplier in the past. It has masqueraded as a master supplier until now... _until now,_ it has become the very evil PCMR swore to destroy.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> We will not know until it has been in use for a while - we do not even know if there are any known errata or bugs - basically until silicon is in the hands of the consumers it is all hypothetical - mainly just hype !


We have been fined tuned not to believe hype since the BULLDOZER days. Whose fault? Its none other than AMD. Why blame consumers?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> We have been fined tuned not to believe hype since the BULLDOZER days. Whose fault? Its none other than AMD. Why blame consumers?


Specifically the marketers, not the engineers.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Incidentally, that makes me wonder: Should the Windows Scheduler Patch be installed on a Zen system for Windows 7?


----------



## FoeFiddyCuh

When are they getting released. You'd think with a date like January they would already announce it.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoeFiddyCuh*
> 
> When are they getting released. You'd think with a date like January they would already announce it.


Paper release in January. Retail release in March.

Sounds like Bristol Ridge will be released at CES with the AM4 boards, and Zen will follow in March.


----------



## nakano2k1

Man... Just by reading this thread you can really see the mind share hooks that NVidia and Intel have sunk into so many people. Price / Performance used to be the distinguishing factor in purchasing new tech. Now it's "oh well, the company that is perceived as inferior needs to have something that not only beats the competition, but also is priced at half of what their competition is. But even then i'm on the fence because i'm a brand loyalist and so i'll have to think long and hard".

Man, the sad times we live in...

The forum induced hype and subsequent flame wars are all so real. Can we just tone it down a couple of notches until the 5th?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Man... Just by reading this thread you can really see the mind share hooks that NVidia and Intel have sunk into so many people. Price / Performance used to be the distinguishing factor in purchasing new tech. Now it's "oh well, the company that is perceived as inferior needs to have something that not only beats the competition, but also is priced at half of what their competition is. But even then i'm on the fence because i'm a brand loyalist and so i'll have to think long and had".
> 
> Man, that sad times we live in...
> 
> The forum induced hype and subsequent flame wars are all so real. Can we just tone it down a couple of notches until the 5th?


Agreed. I'll be writing a follow-up article after the CES event since the previous has been so popular and positively received.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Incidentally, that makes me wonder: Should the Windows Scheduler Patch be installed on a Zen system for Windows 7?


I expect Ryzen to only officially support win10 and onwards. That said , that patch was tailor made to prevent win7 from assigning workloads to the 2nd core of an already busy module when there are available cores on free modules. Without this patch BD family CPUs suffered from unecessary CMT performance penalty (cores that share resources scale at 60-70% and not 100% like untelated vires) and lower turbo frequencies achieved. None of these scenarios should pertain to Ryzen even if it is used with win7, the OS should see its SMT just like intel HT. Still, I wouldn't use win7 with it.


----------



## Mahigan

Among enthusiasts, AMD is an established brand.

Among the mainstream, AMD is not an established brand.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Like Ive said earlier in this thread:
Its gonna take a while, ie years, even if Zen match Kaby Lake in performance.
Intel have been rocking the mainstream and high end all alone for many years now. Enthusiast are accustomed to that i7 processors are the best of the best. Professional users had no other option than Intel to be the most effective with their build. Notebook manufacturers have mostly been using Intel except a small percentage which sold notebooks for a nickel with AMD CPUs.

You cant expect the world to just give up a brand like Intel theyve known for so many years and just suddenly dig AMD the minute benchmarks and Zen launches.
No. AMD have a ton of work ahead of them and engineers are only 50% of the people responsible for making a product successful. The rest is the marketing team responsibility. They now get a product worth praising. Now its about getting that out to the public and making it known


----------



## cjwilson

To anyone who is at least 13 years old and knows a thing or two about computers, AMD is established. The fact that it's the only other company with an x86 license that is actually using the damn thing, should be more than enough for it to be called established in the industry.

Those who are old enough to have experienced the K6 should also consider AMD established.

Those who know a thing or two about computers and who have also owned, or currently own, an Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PlayStation 4 or Xbox One, should also consider AMD established.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> To anyone who is at least 13 years old and knows a thing or two about computers, AMD is established. *The fact that it's the only other company with an x86 license* that is actually using the damn thing, should be more than enough for it to be called established in the industry.


There is VIA which has an x86 license.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Among enthusiasts, AMD is an established brand.
> 
> Among the mainstream, AMD is not an established brand.


Mainstream or not, doesn't matter, intel is surely the better established brand

And you should also pick better words to say this, because you made it sound like "average, ignorant people buy intel and nvidia" "enthusiasts and experts buy AMD"


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Mainstream or not, doesn't matter, intel is surely the better established brand
> 
> And you should also pick better words to say this, because you made it sound like "average, ignorant people buy intel and nvidia" "enthusiasts and experts buy AMD"


Enthusiasts and experts buy whatever is best for their dollar and/or the best performing hardware period. They do so based on informed decisions. This may mean that an AMD product is better suited to their needs than an nVIDIA or Intel product but then again an nVIDIA or Intel product may be better.

They're informed consumers.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> There is VIA which has an x86 license.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> The fact that it's the only other company with an x86 license *that is actually using the damn thing*, should be more than enough for it to be called established in the industry.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Enthusiasts and experts buy whatever is best for their dollar and/or the best performing hardware period. They do so based on informed decisions. This may mean that an AMD product is better suited to their needs than an nVIDIA or Intel product but then again an nVIDIA or Intel product may be better.
> 
> They're informed consumers.


I know what you're saying, i agree, but you made it sound so previously


----------



## Carniflex

Well VIA is using their x86 as well. The fact that they do not sell anything on consumer market does not mean that they are just letting it rot in some drawer.

http://www.viatech.com/en/silicon/processors/

They just not doing consumer stuff. Specializing more in industrial applications and SoC systems.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> There is VIA which has an x86 license.


Most people doesnt even know or care what a license is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Enthusiasts and experts buy whatever is best for their dollar and/or the best performing hardware period. They do so based on informed decisions. This may mean that an AMD product is better suited to their needs than an nVIDIA or Intel product but then again an nVIDIA or Intel product may be better.
> 
> They're informed consumers.


AMD havent been a viable choice for gamers or professionals since pre Bulldozer era.
You are talking about the dirt poor gamers that couldnt afford Intel and was forced to buy AMD. Or just AMD fanboys which would have gotten an AMD CPU no matter what.
These are the people you see supporting AMD mostly today and that is why they are so super protective of AMD when something negative written about AMD arrives.

Ypu dont see regular folks from the Intel side getting defensive. That is because these are the true consumers that got the best money could buy.
If AMD comes up with a better processor than today, they switch side without any hesitation or bias


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> To anyone who is at least 13 years old and knows a thing or two about computers, AMD is established. The fact that it's the only other company with an x86 license that is actually using the damn thing, should be more than enough for it to be called established in the industry.
> 
> Those who are old enough to have experienced the K6 should also consider AMD established.
> 
> Those who know a thing or two about computers and who have also owned, or currently own, an Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PlayStation 4 or Xbox One, should also consider AMD established.


I think you are seriously exaggerating the mass publics knowledge of techonology


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Most people doesnt even know or care what a license is.


If you want to talk about unestablished, VIA would be it out of the three, not AMD.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Ypu dont see regular folks from the Intel side getting defensive.


By the definition of "regular folk," it should apply to both sides, because both companies have them who buy for their needs and don't care about the brand name. But, you're only talking about AMD there. That's not very unbiased, is it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> I think you are seriously exaggerating the mass publics knowledge of techonology


It's hard to miss a big AMD logo. Also, I did specify people who were into technology. Even kids today know what powers their console. For the older folk, if they are into computing at all, they will remember AMD from the late 90s, if not earlier.

The point is, AMD isn't a flash in the pan. It has been around for a while, and there's a point in time when people of various ages can identify who AMD is.


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Most people doesnt even know or care what a license is.
> AMD havent been a viable choice for gamers or professionals since pre Bulldozer era.
> You are talking about the dirt poor gamers that couldnt afford Intel and was forced to buy AMD. Or just AMD fanboys which would have gotten an AMD CPU no matter what.
> These are the people you see supporting AMD mostly today and that is why they are so super protective of AMD when something negative written about AMD arrives.
> 
> *Ypu dont see regular folks from the Intel side getting defensive. That is because these are the true consumers that got the best money could buy.*
> If AMD comes up with a better processor than today, they switch side without any hesitation or bias


I'm not sure I can agree with that... since whispers of Zen started to appear on the interwebs... Intel fans have shown their true colors. From the moment AMD previewed Zen, the Intel fans started to expose themselves.

I am one of those users who buys his CPU based on the price/performance metric (or all out performance varying on my budget). I may run an Intel CPU but I honestly couldn't care less if AMD made a better CPU and would gladly switch (provided the platform is nice).

People are blatantly ignoring the fact that RyZen was clocked at 3.15GHz and boosting at 3.5GHz while the 6600K was clocked at 4GHz+ in those predominantly DX11 gaming tests. They claim that RyZen is slower than a 6600K. When you calculate the performance per clock, however, RyZen is right up there with Broadwell.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> I'm not sure I can agree with that... since whispers of Zen started to appear on the interwebs... Intel fans have shown their true colors. From the moment AMD previewed Zen, the Intel fans started to expose themselves.
> 
> I am one of those users who buys his CPU based on the price/performance metric (or all out performance varying on my budget). I may run an Intel CPU but I honestly couldn't care less if AMD made a better CPU and would gladly switch (provided the platform is nice).
> 
> People are blatantly ignoring the fact that RyZen was clocked at 3.15GHz and boosting at 3.5GHz while the 6600K was clocked at 4GHz+ in those predominantly DX11 gaming tests. They claim that RyZen is slower than a 6600K. When you calculate the performance per clock, however, RyZen is right up there with Broadwell.
> .


I think you are bit overgeneralizing things from what you see on those kind of forums, where people just argue stuff for the sake of arguing. I can see quite of few people who buys enthusiast platforms do not care who wins the performance crown. If AMD ends up being better, then they will switch, simple as that.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> People are blatantly ignoring the fact that RyZen was clocked at 3.15GHz and boosting at 3.5GHz while the 6600K was clocked at 4GHz+ in those predominantly DX11 gaming tests. They claim that RyZen is slower than a 6600K. When you calculate the performance per clock, however, RyZen is right up there with Broadwell.


That Ryzen chip was clocked at 3.30 GHz on all cores, and the i5-6600K has an all-core turbo of 3.60 GHz.

Regardless, the game suite they used was poor. Most of those games don't use more than four cores; Battlefield and Crysis being the two that can. To show single-thread gaming performance of any processor with 6+ cores, whether AMD or Intel, that game suite was bad.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> People ignoring this fact, are more than likely Intel fans.


It entirely depends on the architecture being released.

AMD architecture = Intel fanboys
Intel architecture = AMD fanboys

It's the kind of BS that the kids do with their smartphones. Pretty childish if you ask me. But it happens every single year. People just can't grow up.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> We have a reputable French publication having released figures and enough data in order to formulate some conclusions. One of those conclusions is the one which I have formulated above. A refusal to accept this conclusion, based on the data we have on hand, is a sign of partisanship.
> 
> I am not getting emotional... I am stating a cold logical fact. Refusal to accept empirical data is a sign of partisanship.


As I wrote in my article, expected performance is between the 6850K and 5960X for most workloads, and between the 5960X and 6900K as a best-case scenario in some workloads.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Intel has been around since founded by Gordon Moore in 1968 -
> AMD was founded in 1969 by Jerry Sander and some guys from Fairchild semiconductor .
> So Intel came first ( just )


Not exactly.

Intel was not incorporated and founded until after AMD already incorporated. Moore and his partner originally started it under another name, only later buying the rights to "Intel" from another company in order to use it.

So "Intel" as a brand and name really hasn't been around as long as AMD. Which is the important part to the discussion, brand recognition by the consumer; how much does Intel command?


----------



## Asmodian

Intel Inside.

AMD..... ?

I have been a big AMD fan from their 586 until the core2duo (with one PIII in there) but Intel is *the* established brand for CPUs. People still speak about AMD CPUs as an alternative to Intel's chips.

Ryzen is looking great so far, if good chips can hit 4.5+ GHz they will be very attractive to me. Sadly, I am looking for an upgrade from my 4.8GHz 6700K or 4.2GHz 5960X. I would probably have gotten a Ryzen instead of either of those, if it was available, but it doesn't look like Ryzen will offer a compelling upgrade path for me.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> So "Intel" as a brand and name really hasn't been around as long as AMD. Which is the important part to the discussion, brand recognition by the consumer; how much does Intel command?


Well FWIW, according to Forbes, Intel is the 17th most valuable brand in the world, worth an estimated $27.7 billion. AMD is not in the top 100.

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Well FWIW, according to Forbes, Intel is the 17th most valuable brand in the world, worth an estimated $27.7 billion. AMD is not in the top 100.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/


Only one person in this thread is arguing Intel's position, and it isn't you or I. What I was addressing specifically, while splitting the finest of hairs, was about the establishment of the name itself, which did come after AMD was formed.

"Intel Inside" is one of those marketing ploys that just slammed its way into the mind of people. Coca-Cola, "Intel Inside", "You're getting a Dell, dude!", we have many examples. AMD just hasn't been able to find theirs yet.


----------



## Cheezman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> "Intel Inside" is one of those marketing ploys that just slammed its way into the mind of people. Coca-Cola, "Intel Inside", "You're getting a Dell, dude!", we have many examples. AMD just hasn't been able to find theirs yet.


I have at least a dozen of the Intel "bunny suit" key chains from CompUSA back when that was a thing, in what, 1998?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Only one person in this thread is arguing Intel's position, and it isn't you or I. What I was addressing specifically, while splitting the finest of hairs, was about the establishment of the name itself, which did come after AMD was formed.
> 
> "Intel Inside" is one of those marketing ploys that just slammed its way into the mind of people. Coca-Cola, "Intel Inside", "You're getting a Dell, dude!", we have many examples. AMD just hasn't been able to find theirs yet.


Wow, I'm impressed you remembered the Dell one. No way I would have remembered that (although I do remember the Gateway cow pattern boxes).

Intel Inside is very catchy (as are those bells/tones), whoever came up with that was underpaid.

I really don't know why this discussion has gone on so long, virtually everyone recognizes that Intel has more brand recognition (and is the more established brand) - but in the grand scheme of things they both fall far short of Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.


----------



## lolerk52

AyyMD is the obvious alternative to Intel Inside.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> AyyMD is the obvious alternative to Intel Inside.


Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## comagnum

They should go with something catchy; AMD - We're in your consoles - or AMD - consider us - or AMD - Make informed purchase decisions so we regain market share - or AMD - 'Member when. Something like that.


----------



## lolerk52

AMD Powah
AMD and Chill
AMD of the Red
Advanced AMD
AMD Devices
AMDynamize
AMD: The Red Is Someone's Blood


----------



## cssorkinman

AMD - making cpu upgrades great again.


----------



## Cheezman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> AMD - making cpu upgrades great again.


AMD - Not crooked Intel.

What AMD needs to do is redesign their logo to something more tribal, something that maybe a young, impressionable girl would have tattooed on her back, most likely her lower back region.

...Oh, Corsair already tried that?

Nevermind.


----------



## Dalamar

I hope this means ECC-supported laptops that cost $1600 max will appear, instead of $3000 minimum. Intel may be top dog but they're complete douche bags for disabling ECC when it should be MANDATORY IN ALL SYSTEMS and all their cpus support it due to using the same die.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> AMD Powah
> AMD and Chill
> AMD of the Red
> Advanced AMD
> AMD Devices
> AMDynamize
> AMD: The Red Is Someone's Blood


Hehe pretty good ones. Interestingly when going with blood analogy - some lifeforms living in particularly oxygen deprived environments do have blue blood as their relevant pathway is not iron based. So you can compare, if you so desire the "red blooded" creatures and "blue blooded" creatures. For nvidia - I'm really not aware of any higher lifeforms with green blood. Do note that I'm not judging here nvidia or Intel fans - it is just academically interesting notation. Truly doing such a comparison in PR materials would probably not be "politically correct" though as some people would probably take a bit offence if they would be compared to some kind of deepsea supposedly living thing without a backbone but an large enough nerve cluster to be called a "brain"


----------



## Carniflex

It would be nice if AMD would be pushing for ECC support universally with their AM4 consumer platform. With the memory amounts we are using already it does have an point already plus with the smaller processes the probability of crossing the bit flip threshold increases a bit.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Wow, I'm impressed you remembered the Dell one. No way I would have remembered that (although I do remember the Gateway cow pattern boxes).
> 
> Intel Inside is very catchy (as are those bells/tones), whoever came up with that was underpaid.
> 
> I really don't know why this discussion has gone on so long, virtually everyone recognizes that Intel has more brand recognition (and is the more established brand) - but in the grand scheme of things they both fall far short of Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.


Ah, yes, the good old Gateway boxes!! Maybe I didn't remember that due to an unconscious attempt to not cause PTSD.

My Grandmother called into Gateway one day, eons ago, and ended up *LEASING* a $3800 computer, that after payments was something like $6,000 and she had to return the damn thing!

When I walked in and seen the box on a visit, I flipped my melon!


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> AMD Devices


Advanced Micro Devices ... Devices?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Hehe pretty good ones. Interestingly when going with blood analogy - some lifeforms living in particularly oxygen deprived environments do have blue blood as their relevant pathway is not iron based. So you can compare, if you so desire the "red blooded" creatures and "blue blooded" creatures. For nvidia - I'm really not aware of any higher lifeforms with green blood. Do note that I'm not judging here nvidia or Intel fans - it is just academically interesting notation. Truly doing such a comparison in PR materials would probably not be "politically correct" though as some people would probably take a bit offence if they would be compared to some kind of deepsea supposedly living thing without a backbone but an large enough nerve cluster to be called a "brain"


Well... There is this.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Their tagline now is "Enabling Today, Inspiring Tomorrow" is fine, it is not as catchy as Intel's though.


----------



## Serios

AMD is an established brand in the industry.
People that don't know who AMD is most likely don't know who Intel is either and if somebody will recommend them an AMD CPU they will most likely buy it.

What AMD has to do is launch competitive CPUs at competitive prices, CPUs that are on top of the benchmark charts in a lot of situation because let's be honest that is what establishes the way CPUs or GPUs are perceived by enthusiasts.
AMD also has to allow overclocking on all their CPUs, the same way you could also OC Athlons not just the Phoneoms.That will be seen as a positive advantage buy most people buying and recommending CPUs.

One of the biggest advantages Intel had was not just the better single core performance but also the fact that their platform offered a viable upgrade path and the fact that you didn't need an expensive motherboard to run at stock even the top 4c/8t i7 but now AMD has the opportunity to top that when their top 8c CPU has a 95W TDP and has double the cores in comparison to Intel's non enthusiast platform.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Their tagline now is "Enabling Today, Inspiring Tomorrow" is fine, it is not as catchy as Intel's though.


Intel's _Sponsors of Tomorrow_ tagline is too close for comfort. People may think of "tomorrow" and refer back to Intel.

AMD could use some work on that. I also hope Ryzen gets an animation like the Phenom and Turion did. They were cool, and Intel's are so boring now (my favorite Intel animation, is the PIII, followed by the PXE). It's something else that Intel has but AMD doesn't for marketing.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Problems brewing over at Intel according to CanardPC interviews with ex-employers (reported on Reddit and SA):

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/semiaccurate-coffee-lake-points-to-issues-with-intel%E2%80%99s-10nm-process.2495934/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Andrei*
> I actually read the full Intel article from Canard since I speak French. Here's the most important points:
> 
> 
> They say Intel's in the most precarious time ever in its existence.
> Employees blame Krzanich as the main cause, he's impatient and eager and keeps changing/canceling projects before they get anywhere.
> Many employees/engineers got fired in recent times and they say Krzanich treats engineers (replacing them) like supermarket cashiers, many new hires are inexperienced and not getting trained well enough. The mood in the company is at an all-time low and many employees are in fear for their jobs.
> Murphy Renduchintala is said to actually be a glimmer of hope in the whole mess as since he's been brought on he's been able to focus R&D properly and actually has technical background and makes decisions that engineers are able to get behind on. Some say they're hoping he'll replace Krzanich as CEO once they hope he'll get the boot from the board.
> 10nm is suffering all kinds of problems, both technical as well as management problems. The first samples that got in apparently were extremely disappointing in performance, not to talk about yields.
> *Kaby-Lake as well as Cannon-Lake were supposedly late designs just to save face and management was just hoping AMD wouldn't compete. Cannon-Lake is said to bring almost no architectural improvements.*
> 10nm will sample in late 2017 but production won't happen till 2018.
> Intel has nothing concrete till 2019.
> Long-term, Intel is said to be very worried about x86 as ARM is gaining ever more. If they can't keep Apple happy in the Macbooks that would be the first sign of the decline of x86.
> Because of the above, they say that they have one CPU project which can do hybrid x86/ARM execution and they say they'll have the first prototype wafers with this within the next few months.
> There's an Intel CPU AMD GPU MCM in the works.
> They state the sources on all of this were off-the record interviews with both current and ex-employees.


Biggest takeaway for me is the rumour that Coffee Lake, which follows Cannon Lake, offers no arch improvements. That could mean from 2015-2019 Intel have stood still. This gives all the chance in the world to AMD with Zen and Zen+, Zen++ (7nm).


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Problems brewing over at Intel according to CanardPC interviews with ex-employers (reported on Reddit and SA):
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/semiaccurate-coffee-lake-points-to-issues-with-intel%E2%80%99s-10nm-process.2495934/
> Biggest takeaway for me is the rumour that Coffee Lake, which follows Cannon Lake, offers no arch improvements. That could mean from 2015-2019 Intel have stood still. This gives all the chance in the world to AMD with Zen and Zen+, Zen++ (7nm).


Great find. Thanks. But, IS really Intel into this deep trouble?


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Great find. Thanks. But, IS really Intel into this deep trouble?


I think it's exaggerated tbh as Intel are not going anywhere anytime soon. So when CanardPC say they are in the 'most precarious time ever' I take that as meaning at worse they could lose some significant marketshare from AMD and ARM over the next few years which will force them to become competitive again (with prices).

I'm hoping for that at least. From what we've seen Zen has a massive chance to disrupt Intel's monopoly as since Haswell the IPC gains have been tiny. Haswell to Broadwell to Skylake was tiny. Skylake to Kabylake is literally zero. Kabylake to Coffee Lake is likely close to zero again, with small and quite frankly negligible overrall platform improvements.


----------



## guttheslayer

I hope Intel get crushed.

So much nonsense on the their iGPU performance. I am not sure whether is it because they are lazy to develop better CPU tech or they running limitation at improvement their CPU arch.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I hope Intel get crushed.
> 
> So much nonsense on the their iGPU performance. I am not sure whether is it because they are lazy to develop better CPU tech or they running limitation at improvement their CPU arch.


It is not iGPU, it is L4 with class leading performance. They are confused with their product just as we are. It only shows they are still human, not that the product is bad.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I hope Intel get crushed.


More than that I hope AMD crushes NVIDIA.


----------



## dragneel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> More than that I hope AMD crushes NVIDIA.


That's not going to happen because even on the odd occasion that AMD wins, they still lose.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Nvidia has a lot of loyalists


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> More than that I hope AMD crushes NVIDIA.


Nvidia is better than Intel is cash cow milking. TXP offer 60% performance jump against previous Titan with 20% price increase.

Intel however increases count count by 25% with <10% IPC gained (Yet lower OC headroom) but charge you 75% more.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> More than that I hope AMD crushes NVIDIA.


never going to happen. Nvida's RnD department spends more than amd makes.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> never going to happen. Nvida's RnD department spends more than amd makes.


One wrong misstep and they lose their core base. It only takes them once to be dishonest with themselves and promote their product for what is not and everyone starts doubting what their brand's message is. Intel did it with Iris Pro, Nvidia did it with Tegra. There is just no denying AMD's semi-custom, ARM's mobile, Intel's cpu caches, or Nvidia's gpu caches. Any of these wishing to be greeted otherwise won't be greeted at all at this point.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> One wrong misstep and they lose their core base. It only takes them once to be dishonest with themselves and promote their product for what is not and everyone starts doubting what their brand's message is. Intel did it with Iris Pro, Nvidia did it with Tegra. There is just no denying AMD's semi-custom, ARM's mobile, Intel's cpu caches, or Nvidia's gpu caches. Any of these wishing to be greeted otherwise won't be greeted at all at this point.


lets be honest nvidia has lied so many times they make Pinocchio look good and people still buy their stuff. unless they equip bombs in their cards people will continue to buy their cards and nvidia will be on top. you remember the 970 3.5gb fiasco? that barely even put a dent in their market share. too many nvidia fanboys and nvidia loyalists.


----------



## dragneel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> unless they equip bombs in their cards people will continue to buy their cards.


Fermi :^)


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> lets be honest nvidia has lied so many times they make Pinocchio look good and people still buy their stuff. unless they equip bombs in their cards people will continue to buy their cards and nvidia will be on top. you remember the 970 3.5gb fiasco? that barely even put a dent in their market share. too many nvidia fanboys and nvidia loyalists.


No, I don't care about that. What irritates me is intellectual dishonesty towards their own selves. That is the only crime they shouldn't commit. Play with sheeple all day long. What if Tegras were Nintendo NX'es of their day and not pushed as Intel Merrifield? What if Broadwell's were application specific processors and not overpriced and underperforming APUs? That is what I'm worried about. You can fail at being yourself only so many times. Look at Lucas Games. I literally loved the podracer. 100% on the money. Botched 1 development cycle and now disney is providing S&M services to it. Absolutely disgusting what came to be out of an extraordinary entertainment company.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dragneel*
> 
> Fermi :^)


my 7 year old 580 still going strong








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> No, I don't care about that. What irritates me is intellectual dishonesty towards their own selves. That is the only crime they shouldn't commit. Play with sheeple all day long. What if Tegras were Nintendo NX'es of their day and not pushed as Intel Merrifield? What if Broadwell's were application specific processors and not overpriced and underperforming APUs? That is what I'm worried about. You can fail at being yourself only so many times. Look at Lucas Games. I literally loved the podracer. 100% on the money. Botched 1 development cycle and now disney is providing S&M services to it. Absolutely disgusting what came to be out of an extraordinary entertainment company.


not even sure what your trying to say


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> "You're getting a Dell, dude!"


Feeling like a loser right now, but I've got nightmares of that commercial with the idiot saying "Dude! You're getting a Dell!"

And now I won't sleep for days...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Wow, I'm impressed you remembered the Dell one. No way I would have remembered that (although I do remember the Gateway cow pattern boxes).


I'm happy to remember them both except for the fact that it makes me feel older


----------



## pony-tail

Old is when you remember getting a shiny new Amstrad 6128 !


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Problems brewing over at Intel according to CanardPC interviews with ex-employers (reported on Reddit and SA):
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/semiaccurate-coffee-lake-points-to-issues-with-intel%E2%80%99s-10nm-process.2495934/
> Biggest takeaway for me is the rumour that Coffee Lake, which follows Cannon Lake, offers no arch improvements. That could mean from 2015-2019 Intel have stood still. This gives all the chance in the world to AMD with Zen and Zen+, Zen++ (7nm).


From my understanding, Coffee Lake is simply just Cannonlake with six cores. Essentially, it's the lower segment of what would otherwise be 'Cannonlake-E.' Thus, no improvement because it's the same core, like Broadwell --> Broadwell-E.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> One wrong misstep and they lose their core base. It only takes them once to be dishonest with themselves and promote their product for what is not [...]


You can argue that it has already happened. Twice. People just don't care.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> From my understanding, Coffee Lake is simply just Cannonlake with six cores. Essentially, it's the lower segment of what would otherwise be 'Cannonlake-E.' Thus, no improvement because it's the same core, like Broadwell --> Broadwell-E.
> *You can argue that it has already happened. Twice. People just don't care.*


No, it has not happened enough. Notice this is about character, not the execution. Their water just got warm. It was never as pervasive, to the same extensiveness, of other corporate psychoses. People can wait, or hold on when the performance target isn't there. They just cannot realign if the target is so wide of the mark.
That is what happens when you let marketeers cannibalize some very distinguished and acute engineering characters(do you see the oxymoron here?).


----------



## Lipos

http://ocaholic.ch/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15959


----------



## nakano2k1

Oooohhhh.... That MSI titanium board is sexy. Looks somewhat out the range of what I would like to spend on a motherboard however.

Can't wait for the official release!!


----------



## kd5151

new am4 motherboards


----------



## flippin_waffles

Like others have mentioned on other boards, is there a 6 pin PCI E 4.0 auxiliary power connector?


----------



## Caldeio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Like others have mentioned on other boards, is there a 6 pin PCI E 4.0 auxiliary power connector?


Sure looks like an extra 6-pin on that x370 board. What's that mean?


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> Sure looks like an extra 6-pin on that x370 board. What's that mean?


Well it could mean AM4 supports PCI E 4.0. The PCI E spec requires an auxiliary power connector. And being as this plug sits right next to a PCI E slot it could indicate that.


----------



## scorch062

Those pin connectors on x370 are confusing.

Also, never seen 8+4 pins for the CPU. Would that be for the extra CPU overclocking headroom?


----------



## iLeakStuff

LOL at this review. And true it is








http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/01/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-review/


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> Sure looks like an extra 6-pin on that x370 board. What's that mean?


Actually it looks like it is present on some other MSI boards as well noticed by iBoMby

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/new-zen-microarchitecture-details.2465645/page-141#post-38663479


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scorch062*
> 
> Those pin connectors on x370 are confusing.
> 
> Also, never seen 8+4 pins for the CPU. Would that be for the extra CPU overclocking headroom?


i have 8+4 cpu pin on my motherboard. Rampage 4 BE


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> No, it has not happened enough. *Notice this is about character, not the execution. Their water just got warm. It was never as pervasive, to the same extensiveness, of other corporate psychoses. People can wait, or hold on when the performance target isn't there. They just cannot realign if the target is so wide of the mark.*
> That is what happens when you let marketeers cannibalize some very distinguished and acute engineering characters(do you see the oxymoron here?).


Have you been on the bottle again? You sound like you have. It's too early in the day for the sauce man!


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Have you been on the bottle again? You sound like you have. It's too early in the day for the sauce man!


I guess you never felt the chills when recognizing that you don't know someone so well after a while... That disconnect is the one I'm trying to describe.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I guess you never felt the chills when recognizing that you don't know someone so well after a while... That disconnect is the one I'm trying to describe.


Ha no it's fine I get what you are saying just quite amusing to read


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Ha no it's fine I get what you are saying just quite amusing to read


Thank you, I like amusing things myself.


----------



## ku4eto

What PSU i need to have in order to supply that 8+4 CPU... i barely got 4+4.

Also, that 6 power pin... ***?


----------



## num1son

AMD showing off 8 core Ryzen and unnamed Vega GPU last night at CES Unveiled:

AMD Ryzen + Vega Shown Off At CES


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> i have 8+4 cpu pin on my motherboard. Rampage 4 BE


No you have one EPS 8 pin for CPU, and one 4 pin for RAM (which is not required). (and one additional molex for PCI-E) Asus use dual EPS 8 pin ONLY on WS MB. And plugging PSU into both is required only for high end power hungry XEONs. Only heavily overclocked 32 nm 6-core were able to melt CPU power connector. I think it was EPS 8, but I'm not sure. It was overclocking without LN2. Custom water loop held well, but power connector bit melted and he had hard time to remove it from MB.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> my 7 year old 580 still going strong


Only because it hit critical mass and became a self-sustaining reaction.










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I hope Intel get crushed.
> 
> So much nonsense on the their iGPU performance. I am not sure whether is it because they are lazy to develop better CPU tech or they running limitation at improvement their CPU arch.


A lot of it is likely due to licensing issues on GPU technology, as well as the lack of pressure from AMD.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *num1son*
> 
> AMD showing off 8 core Ryzen and unnamed Vega GPU last night at CES Unveiled:
> 
> AMD Ryzen + Vega Shown Off At CES


It really didn't even budge from 60 FPS, even with the fire particle effects and lighting at the VERY end.

My nerd dial has been turned to 11 by AMD over the last month or so! I might have to give my computer over to my oldest and give Ryzen a try to satisfy. 3rd party reviews and information can't come fast enough!


----------



## num1son

I am still holding some reservations, but it's super impressive that pre-release parts (usually a nightmare for AMD) are not only running so flawlessly, but rocking solid frames at the v-sync limit.









Pricing on Ryzen will be critical. Assuming it comes near what rumors have been I will certainly be building my first AMD system in a long long time.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dragneel*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> More than that I hope AMD crushes NVIDIA.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not going to happen because even on the odd occasion that AMD wins, they still lose.
Click to expand...

Well, a prime example of that was removing many advanced features of their drivers in the recent Crimson set. I have found my 7950 tends to be rather aggressive with trying to adjust contrast levels on-the-fly during video playing, so I always disable dynamic contrast.

What an unwelcome surprise to find out the feature is SO disabled you can't even put in the registry entry to re-enable it!

Now to their credit, AMD/ATI are taking a vote to see what features should be added/reinstated and the most popular is to put back the advanced options for video playing.

But still, AMD didn't need help shooting itself in the foot after BD, and they managed to anyway, snce until that poll I was seriously considering jumping over to nVidia.


----------



## Pedros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Only because it hit critical mass and became a self-sustaining reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of it is likely due to licensing issues on GPU technology, as well as the lack of pressure from AMD.
> It really didn't even budge from 60 FPS, even with the fire particle effects and lighting at the VERY end.
> 
> My nerd dial has been turned to 11 by AMD over the last month or so! I might have to give my computer over to my oldest and give Ryzen a try to satisfy. 3rd party reviews and information can't come fast enough!


Dude ... i'm with you ... i think i'll give my 4690K to my son ... and just do a ground up system based on AMD... lol ...

...

... or in the i just go Intel! lol

Don't know why, but it's been a while since the "market" was so hyped for something new ... maybe because Intel failed to deliver and now we're seeing a change of mindset from AMD ... who knows, but my Money is not safe at all lolol


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Well, a prime example of that was removing many advanced features of their drivers in the recent Crimson set. I have found my 7950 tends to be rather aggressive with trying to adjust contrast levels on-the-fly during video playing, so I always disable dynamic contrast.
> 
> What an unwelcome surprise to find out the feature is SO disabled you can't even put in the registry entry to re-enable it!
> 
> Now to their credit, AMD/ATI are taking a vote to see what features should be added/reinstated and the most popular is to put back the advanced options for video playing.
> 
> But still, AMD didn't need help shooting itself in the foot after BD, and they managed to anyway, snce until that poll I was seriously considering jumping over to nVidia.


Disable brighter whites, too, in case you find it.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedros*
> 
> Dude ... i'm with you ... i think i'll give my 4690K to my son ... and just do a ground up system based on AMD... lol ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ... or in the i just go Intel! lol
> 
> Don't know why, but it's been a while since the "market" was so hyped for something new ... maybe because Intel failed to deliver and now we're seeing a change of mindset from AMD ... who knows, but my Money is not safe at all lolol


A brand spanking new CPU architecture and two new GPU architectures all in the same year? That is like open bar at the club in Vegas, getting an extra thing of fries for free in your bag without even asking, or sometimes its a free pie!

If we see, on top of everything else, a 4K 120/144 Hz VRR panel this year as well? Well, the wife can just deal with UPS showing up with big ass boxes full of fresh PC parts. Because it is on at that point! I will just spend less on the car this year to make up for it.

EDIT:

Oh damn.....

http://www.overclock.net/t/1620061/vc-asus-announces-swift-pg27uq-4k-ips-144hz-g-sync-hdr-monitor/0_20


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> It really didn't even budge from 60 FPS, even with the fire particle effects and lighting at the VERY end.


Do you happen to know what map that is? (I don't play SWBF.)


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Do you happen to know what map that is? (I don't play SWBF.)


I don't.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Do you happen to know what map that is? (I don't play SWBF.)


Survivors of Endor or Resistance of Endor iirc.. Or it's just the normal Endor map, can't remember if that one also had burning on it.


----------



## num1son

I think the rep said the map was Endor from the Rogue One DLC.


----------



## Pedros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> A brand spanking new CPU architecture and two new GPU architectures all in the same year? That is like open bar at the club in Vegas, getting an extra thing of fries for free in your bag without even asking, or sometimes its a free pie!
> 
> If we see, on top of everything else, a 4K 120/144 Hz VRR panel this year as well? Well, the wife can just deal with UPS showing up with big ass boxes full of fresh PC parts. Because it is on at that point! I will just spend less on the car this year to make up for it.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Oh damn.....
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1620061/vc-asus-announces-swift-pg27uq-4k-ips-144hz-g-sync-hdr-monitor/0_20


Now that you reminded me... i need to fix my car... some guy forgot how to reverse and smashed my rear!!!
But what the heck, the car still rides, so ... pc parts first... LOL

Jisus... maybe i'm 25 all over again! LOL


----------



## Shatun-Bear

I tell you what guys I'm also honestly 100% up for building a complete AMD build this summer. Unfortunately I'm also meant to be getting married around then too and that is expensive business, too. But I'm sure it can be done on the cheap so I save a grand or so for a new Team Red rig


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedros*
> 
> Now that you reminded me... i need to fix my car... some guy forgot how to reverse and smashed my rear!!!
> But what the heck, the car still rides, so ... pc parts first... LOL
> 
> Jisus... maybe i'm 25 all over again! LOL


I am in the middle of redoing my 69 Camaro, although people not knowing how to back up must being going around.

This past Fall both my wife's car and my brother's car were backed into and had the front-ends smashed to Hell. Thankfully insurance fixed both just fine. My wife's was while waiting in line for coffee, guy ahead of her decided he didn't want to wait. My brother's was a guy backing out of his driveway, just kept on going until he found my brother's car.


----------



## Pedros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> I am in the middle of redoing my 69 Camaro, although people not knowing how to back up must being going around.
> 
> This past Fall both my wife's car and my brother's car were backed into and had the front-ends smashed to Hell. Thankfully insurance fixed both just fine. My wife's was while waiting in line for coffee, guy ahead of her decided he didn't want to wait. My brother's was a guy backing out of his driveway, just kept on going until he found my brother's car.


Mine was at the parking lot ... when i arrived it was like that ... and the only explanation i had was someone doing reverse didn't have idea when to stop ... ensurance just looked at me and say "bad luck"









But i don't have a full coverage ensurance ... i had it when the car was new, but at some point i just changed it since it was so damn expensive. Guess what ... surprise surprise ... now i wanted it back!









( sorry for the off topic guys







)


----------



## Marios145

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> I tell you what guys I'm also honestly 100% up for building a complete AMD build this summer. Unfortunately I'm also meant to be getting married around then too and that is expensive business, too. But I'm sure it can be done on the cheap so I save a grand or so for a new Team Red rig


That's easy, add the budget of your PC in the wedding budget...say you need it for the music playlist or photos


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *num1son*
> 
> I think the rep said the map was Endor from the Rogue One DLC.


There is no Endor maps in the RO DLC.

I'm 99% sure it's Survivors of Endor.


----------



## Pedros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> That's easy, add the budget of your PC in the wedding budget...say you need it for the music playlist or photos


lololol... don't you guys usually get some Money in wedding gifts? just take one or two envelopes from your wife's sight and at the end of the day you just say that someone offered empty envelops! Oh god, this world is turned upside down ...







ehehhe


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedros*
> 
> lololol... don't you guys usually get some Money in wedding gifts? just take one or two envelopes from your wife's sight and at the end of the day you just say that someone offered empty envelops! Oh god, this world is turned upside down ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ehehhe


This would be a great kickstarter.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> That's easy, add the budget of your PC in the wedding budget...say you need it for the music playlist or photos


Lol sounds like a plan...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedros*
> 
> lololol... don't you guys usually get some Money in wedding gifts? just take one or two envelopes from your wife's sight and at the end of the day you just say that someone offered empty envelops! Oh god, this world is turned upside down ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ehehhe


Yeah we do but apparently that will be the funds for a honeymoon trip around Asia.

Anyway who gives a toss about my life truth is I'm poor atm! So I need to get a better job in the summer to realise my dream of an all-AMD rig.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ku4eto*
> 
> What PSU i need to have in order to supply that 8+4 CPU... i barely got 4+4.
> 
> Also, that 6 power pin... ***?


Any decent modern PSU, most of those can support x79/x99 etc. or other boards that can have dual 8pin CPU power, or some 9590 CPU AMD boards have those too? I wouldn't be surprised since they eat so much power.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedros*
> 
> Now that you reminded me... i need to fix my car... some guy forgot how to reverse and smashed my rear!!!
> But what the heck, the car still rides, so ... pc parts first... LOL
> 
> Jisus... maybe i'm 25 all over again! LOL


My car ( ute / pickup - depending on country ) Is sitting in my driveway waiting for the mechanic to collect it and fix my power steering $$$$$
So no skimping on repairs for me or I will be walking !
Edit - If the price is not ridiculous I will be building a new AMD machine too regardless - I will just skimp on food I am pretty fat anyhow would not hurt me !


----------



## Quantum Reality

Looking at this board, it seems that even with the shrinking gap on the heatsink mounts, AMD intends to continue its tried and true method of allowing a simple no-hassle clip-on design in contrast to the LGA pushpin design that has bedevilled many a person.

Overall pretty nice mobo aesthetics, but interestingly enough I count only two SATA ports on this one. Are they assuming more people will be using M.2?

Speaking of M.2 I really don't like the placement of that M.2 socket, though. Right under the graphics card, which can get kinda warm, and then SSDs alone can sometimes kick out pretty furious heat (the nominal maximum safe operating temperature of a Samsung 960 is about 70 degrees C as I recall), so definitely good airflow is a must.


----------



## Cyrious

For the 8+4 CPU power, I suspect it will operate the same way auxiliary CPU-power plugs currently do: one is required, but both are there to provide the extra current when needed. The 8-pin socket provides about 288W to the CPU, but if its needed the other one can provide another 144W or thereabouts, depending on PSU and plug build quality.

If the user doesnt have a PSU that has an 8-pin compatible plug, and/or is running a lower power CPU (or, hell, the 8c full fat chip stock), they could get away with running it on a 4-pin plug alone. They just wont get much overclocking out of it, if any, and if they do they'll set their board on fire


----------



## xx9e02

Anandtech has pictures of a few more boards: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10990/amd-announces-x370-motherboards-for-am4-laying-the-groundwork-for-ryzen

Edit: another asrock - http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/01/asrock-ryzen-motherboard-100702154-orig.jpg


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xx9e02*
> 
> Anandtech has pictures of a few more boards: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10990/amd-announces-x370-motherboards-for-am4-laying-the-groundwork-for-ryzen
> 
> Edit: another asrock - http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/01/asrock-ryzen-motherboard-100702154-orig.jpg


Wow... those are some actually good looking motherboards. I really like the ASRock taichi with Ryzen inscribed on the io cover(?).


----------



## ku4eto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at this board, it seems that even with the shrinking gap on the heatsink mounts, AMD intends to continue its tried and true method of allowing a simple no-hassle clip-on design in contrast to the LGA pushpin design that has bedevilled many a person.
> 
> Overall pretty nice mobo aesthetics, but interestingly enough I count only two SATA ports on this one. Are they assuming more people will be using M.2?
> 
> Speaking of M.2 I really don't like the placement of that M.2 socket, though. Right under the graphics card, which can get kinda warm, and then SSDs alone can sometimes kick out pretty furious heat (the nominal maximum safe operating temperature of a Samsung 960 is about 70 degrees C as I recall), so definitely good airflow is a must.


Seems like there are 2 more just below them, but they are horizontal ones.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xx9e02*
> 
> Anandtech has pictures of a few more boards: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10990/amd-announces-x370-motherboards-for-am4-laying-the-groundwork-for-ryzen
> 
> Edit: another asrock - http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/01/asrock-ryzen-motherboard-100702154-orig.jpg


4 or 8 SATA Ports. I really do hope its 8.

Also, those ASRocks :

WE NEED MORE PHASES! I counted total of 16, is that a 12+4?

Also, why do i notice the uncapped capacitors on the plate with Purity Sound 4 and Sound Blaster Cinema?

And WHAT IS THAT on the top left corner, a TV tuner ??


----------



## Sand3853

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ku4eto*
> 
> Seems like there are 2 more just below them, but they are horizontal ones.
> 4 or 8 SATA Ports. I really do hope its 8.
> 
> Also, those ASRocks :
> 
> WE NEED MORE PHASES! I counted total of 16, is that a 12+4?
> 
> Also, why do i notice the uncapped capacitors on the plate with Purity Sound 4 and Sound Blaster Cinema?
> 
> And WHAT IS THAT on the top left corner, a TV tuner ??


I'd almost hazard a guess that it's a wifi adapter in the top left corner...


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at this board, it seems that even with the shrinking gap on the heatsink mounts, AMD intends to continue its tried and true method of allowing a simple no-hassle clip-on design in contrast to the LGA pushpin design that has bedevilled many a person.
> 
> Overall pretty nice mobo aesthetics, but interestingly enough I count only two SATA ports on this one. Are they assuming more people will be using M.2?
> 
> *Speaking of M.2 I really don't like the placement of that M.2 socket, though. Right under the graphics card, which can get kinda warm*, and then SSDs alone can sometimes kick out pretty furious heat (the nominal maximum safe operating temperature of a Samsung 960 is about 70 degrees C as I recall), so definitely good airflow is a must.


For space economy reasons that is where most manufacturers put the m.2 slot. That is where my SM951 is, right under my graphics card (a Nitro 390X) and it doesn't seem to be a problem even with a hotter card like that. Some put the m.2 at an offset to being directly next to the card slot but you'll find that it's usually covered by the dGPU as they are so thick these days and often take up 2+ slots.


----------



## num1son

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> There is no Endor maps in the RO DLC.
> 
> I'm 99% sure it's Survivors of Endor.


I only ever played the open Beta of the game, but what you say makes sense according to the movies, etc. Rep must have been confused.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Survivors of Endor or Resistance of Endor iirc.. Or it's just the normal Endor map, can't remember if that one also had burning on it.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *num1son*
> 
> I think the rep said the map was Endor from the Rogue One DLC.


Thanks guys.


----------



## Tojara

Zen octa running at 3.6GHz base/3.9GHz turbo spotted at CES:
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/prozessoren/41469-amd-zeigt-doom-auf-ryzen-und-vega-cpu-bei-3-6-ghz.html


----------



## ecogen

> @Dresdenboy F4 is already here @ 3.6/4.0 ?
> 
> - Canard PC Hardware (@CPCHardware)


January 5, 2017


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Zen octa running at 3.6GHz base/3.9GHz turbo spotted at CES:
> http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/prozessoren/41469-amd-zeigt-doom-auf-ryzen-und-vega-cpu-bei-3-6-ghz.html


i7 6900K 3.7GHz

GG Intel

3.4GHz Zen was only sligtly behind 6900K too.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Dresdenboy F4 is already here @ 3.6/4.0 ?
> 
> - Canard PC Hardware (@CPCHardware)
> 
> 
> 
> January 5, 2017
Click to expand...

You should explain yourself more in your posts.
F4 revision is the newest according to Canard and 8-core Zen now runs at 4.0GHz. Bet that will be the final revision before launch.

Various rumor sites wasnt lying when they said AMD got higher clocks out of Zen than expected. Very good


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> i7 6900K 3.7GHz
> 
> GG Intel
> 
> 3.4GHz Zen was only sligtly behind 6900K too.
> You should explain yourself more in your posts.
> F4 revision is the newest according to Canard and 8-core Zen now runs at 4.0GHz. Bet that will be the final revision before launch.
> 
> Various rumor sites wasnt lying when they said AMD got higher clocks out of Zen than expected. Very good


My bad, didn't check my post after submmitting. I usually am used to embedding tweets and having the whole tweet showing which obviously would require no explanation.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> i7 6900K 3.7GHz
> 
> GG Intel
> 
> 3.4GHz Zen was only sligtly behind 6900K too.
> You should explain yourself more in your posts.
> F4 revision is the newest according to Canard and 8-core Zen now runs at 4.0GHz. Bet that will be the final revision before launch.
> 
> Various rumor sites wasnt lying when they said AMD got higher clocks out of Zen than expected. Very good


If this thing is turboing to 4ghz stock I'd imagine 4.5 _should_ be easy - especially after after some time goes by and it matures further.


----------



## Fyrwulf

And that's probably using a Wraith cooler in an average case. Zen is going to love my Mercury S8 with its own dedicated water loop.

Also, I'm extremely disappointed in Asus being a no show. I want an X370 board with a full cover like the Maximus IX Code.


----------



## AmericanLoco

That's unbelievably impressive if AMD really is achieving 3.6/4.0 with an 8 core part inside a 95 watt TDP. I remember last year some people here were claiming that Zen would be lucky to hit 2.8Ghz on the Global Foundry 14nm process.

Either GloFlo's 14nm isn't nearly as bad as some thought, or AMD's engineers are just ridiculously disciplined after being forced to squeeze every drop of performance they could out their 28nm APUs for years.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> That's unbelievably impressive if AMD really is achieving 3.6/4.0 with an 8 core part inside a 95 watt TDP. I remember last year some people here were claiming that Zen would be lucky to hit 2.8Ghz on the Global Foundry 14nm process.
> 
> Either GloFlo's 14nm isn't nearly as bad as some thought, or AMD's engineers are just ridiculously disciplined after being forced to squeeze every drop of performance they could out their 28nm APUs for years.


At this point I'm absolutely positive AMD isn't using 14LPP, but 14LPU.

EDIT: Also, another point in the AMD engineers are better than Intel engineers category.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> At this point I'm absolutely positive AMD isn't using 14LPP, but 14LPU.
> 
> EDIT: Also, another point in the AMD engineers are better than Intel engineers category.


Unfortunately, that is not how American economy works. Banks regard debt as equity, so AMD has more leverage than any big tech corporation in order for the banks _to get back to their business._
Don't insult engineers. They may be a cold hearted bunch(I had a friend once), but it is certainly the scarier prospect to lose them.


----------



## darealist

Zen >>>>> Vega


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darealist*
> 
> Zen >>>>> Vega


How do you figure? We don't know how finished Vega will perform.

We know far more about Zen, and it's looking great. Vega could be the same.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Unfortunately, that is not how American economy works. Banks regard debt as equity, so AMD has more leverage than any big tech corporation in order for the banks _to get back to their business._
> Don't insult engineers. They may be a cold hearted bunch(I had a friend once), but it is certainly the scarier prospect to lose them.


What are you even talking about?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> What are you even talking about?


It is their money they want to get the interest going. That is the leverage.


----------



## provost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> It is their money they want to get the interest going. That is the leverage.


Well at least we have some FI covenant discussion to amuse ourselves. LOL


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> It is their money they want to get the interest going. That is the leverage.


You're still not making any sense. 14LPP is Samsung's 2nd Gen 14nm process. 14LPC is Samsung's 3rd Gen 14nm process, which follows the same design rules as 14LPP and allows for higher frequencies for the same power.

As for your objection to my AMD engineers being better than Intel engineers, it's an objective fact. Intel engineers can't and don't design a new architecture on a new node. Hence Tick-Tock and now Process-Architecture-Optimization. Meanwhile AMD did design a completely new architecture on a new node and got better frequencies than Intel could ever dream of for an eight core part. Oh yeah, and their new architecture isn't yet another reiteration of a decades old core design.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Well at least we have some FI covenant discussion to amuse ourselves. LOL


I'm searching for the reference. I will share the amusement, not going to keep you out of the troll bait, don't worry.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> You're still not making any sense. 14LPP is Samsung's 2nd Gen 14nm process. 14LPC is Samsung's 3rd Gen 14nm process, which follows the same design rules as 14LPP and allows for higher frequencies for the same power.
> 
> As for your objection to my AMD engineers being better than Intel engineers, it's an objective fact. Intel engineers can't and don't design a new architecture on a new node. Hence Tick-Tock and now Process-Architecture-Optimization. Meanwhile AMD did design a completely new architecture on a new node and got better frequencies than Intel could ever dream of for an eight core part. Oh yeah, and their new architecture isn't yet another reiteration of a decades old core design.


I'm saying that for the last time: DO NOT INSULT ENGINEERS! That is like insulting an AI with regard to its intuitive capacity. You never know whether it can crack a smile or would run wild on you.
For reference: you are insulting fine gentlemen like these. They do not deserve it. I wish I was in his class. As a side note, we have a singer called Ibo who said, "Was there an _'Oxford'_ in Urfa when we didn't go to college?"


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I'm saying that for the last time: DO NOT INSULT ENGINEERS! That is like insulting an AI with regard to its intuitive capacity. You never know whether it can crack a smile or would run wild on you.


I'll do what I like, thank you.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> i7 6900K 3.7GHz
> 
> GG Intel


_Base/all-core turbo/single-core turbo_

i7-6900K = 3200 / 3500 / 3700
Ryzen SR7 = 3600 / 3700 / 3900

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> 3.4GHz Zen was only sligtly behind 6900K too.


Yeah. Well... According to AMD, it was slightly ahead. But I'll take that as best-case (between 5960X and 6900K). I suspect that in most scenarios, it'll be between the 6850K and 5960X. Still not bad. Not bad at all.

AMD really needs that per-core and single-thread performance. That's what screwed them over with Bulldozer and its derivatives. Zen is definitely closer to Intel, but if it needs 8 cores to compete with 6 Intel cores, it's still in the same boat more or less. Just not as much.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> _Base/all-core turbo/single-core turbo_
> 
> i7-6900K = 3200 / 3500 / 3700
> Ryzen SR7 = 3600 / 3700 / 3900
> Yeah. Well... According to AMD, it was slightly ahead. But I'll take that as best-case (between 5960X and 6900K). I suspect that in most scenarios, it'll be between the 6850K and 5960X. Still not bad. Not bad at all.
> 
> AMD really needs that per-core and single-thread performance. That's what screwed them over with Bulldozer and its derivatives. Zen is definitely closer to Intel, but if it needs 8 cores to compete with 6 Intel cores, it's still in the same boat more or less. Just not as much.


TIL 6900K is a 6c.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> As for your objection to my AMD engineers being better than Intel engineers, it's an objective fact.


I will say that AMD typically gets more out of the process nodes than Intel does. For example, K10 clocked higher than Penryn. Now Zen appears to clock higher than Broadwell. (I will omit Bulldozer to Excavator because they are NetBurst-like designs.)


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> TIL 6900K is a 6c.


That is not what I'm saying. Please re-read my post. 6850K level of performance is what we should be expecting. That is a 6-core.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> That is not what I'm saying. 6850K level of performance is what we should be expecting. That is a 6-core.


Based on?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I will say that AMD typically gets more out of the process nodes than Intel does. For example, K10 clocked higher than Penryn. Now Zen appears to clock higher than Broadwell. (I will omit Bulldozer to Excavator because they are NetBurst-like designs.)


More vomit. Sigh...
Guys, you know I'm playing you for a fool right? As soon as the engineers catch the wind of it and change to my team, what are you going to do about it? Because _they will know_ I treasure them.


----------



## IRobot23

RYZEN 8C/12T ~ SKYLAKE 8C/12T CLOCK PER CLOCK. RYZEN could be faster in some scenarios.
AVX2 SKYLAKE WILL BE FASTER.

We have seen that RYZEN was faster clock per clock against SKYLAKE in BLENDER and Handbrake.
http://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/24061216784l.jpg

ENG-Sample from which year?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Based on?


As a general performance metric. If you combine a best-case scenario (Blender demo) and a worst-case scenario (AVX2), you'll end up with "between 6850K and 5960X," which is what I said. Edging more to the 5960X, of course.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> As a general performance metric. If you combine a best-case scenario (Blender demo) and a worst-case scenario (AVX2), you'll end up with "between 6850K and 5960X," which is what I said. Edging more to the 5960X, of course.


Yeah for AVX2 it's definitely gonna be significantly weaker. Does that really matter though for most consumers? I expect it to be very close to the 6900k in most workloads. But that's just me being hopeful.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Yeah for AVX2 it's definitely gonna be significantly weaker. Does that really matter though for most consumers? I expect it to be very close to the 6900k in most workloads. But that's just me being hopeful.


RYZEN will be faster than i7 6900K clock per clock in some workloads. We already saw that in blender and handbrake.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> More vomit. Sigh...
> Guys, you know I'm playing you for a fool right? As soon as the engineers catch the wind of it and change to my team, what are you going to do about it? Because _they will know_ I treasure them.


You don't have to like the truth.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Yeah for AVX2 it's definitely gonna be significantly weaker. Does that really matter though for most consumers? I expect it to be very close to the 6900k in most workloads. But that's just me being hopeful.


It definitely doesn't. Intel shot itself in the foot with AVX2. On one hand, you need software engineers to step forward to support the instructions, but on the other hand you also need mainstream consumer hardware to support it. Intel has been very reluctant to include AVX on Pentium-class processors. AMD, meanwhile, will happily give it to you with an Athlon.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> You don't have to like the truth.


The truth is in their hands, not yours.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> The truth is in their hands, not yours.


What's with the spiritual drivel?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> What's with the spiritual drivel?


Basically whomever is closer to the electron runs the GOD OS in my point of view.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Basically whomever is closer to the electron runs the GOD OS in my point of view.


I'm not knocking Intel engineers. Penryn remains one of my favorite chips. Followed by Sandy Bridge (for the overclocking). But, AMD simply gets more out of the process node. The APUs at 28 nm are a testament to that.

The fiasco with Bulldozer wouldn't have happened if the marketing department was kept on a leash. The engineers are brilliant.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> We have seen that RYZEN was faster clock per clock against SKYLAKE in BLENDER and Handbrake.
> http://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/24061216784l.jpg


That image is displaying an average performance metric from the specified test suite. That's also 8 Zen cores versus 4 Skylake cores.
http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/#evaluation-computational-workloads

On a clock-for-clock basis, Zen is definitely behind Skylake. It might even be behind Broadwell slightly, but Zen clocking higher can alleviate that.


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I'm not knocking Intel engineers. Penryn remains one of my favorite chips. Followed by Sandy Bridge (for the overclocking). But, AMD simply gets more out of the process node. The APUs at 28 nm are a testament to that.
> 
> The fiasco with Bulldozer wouldn't have happened if the marketing department was kept on a leash. The engineers are brilliant.


Are you basing any of this on the assumption that Intel Engineers are not being held on an extremely tight leash?

Many of us have the opinion that Intel "The Company" is releasing the bare minimum which is lightyears different from what their Engineers are capable of producing.

Bulldozer performance was exactly what it was. Many of us shut out the marketing fluff as smoke and mirrors where everyone has an opinion and flares up over everything.

We still would likely have shunned it regardless of what marketing did. It didn't compete.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> Are you basing any of this on the assumption that Intel Engineers are not being held on an extremely tight leash?
> 
> Many of us have the opinion that Intel "The Company" is releasing the bare minimum which is lightyears different from what their Engineers are capable of producing.


No. My opinion on the engineers is of no relation to what Intel as a company is releasing. The engineers of both companies are amazing people and often go uncredited. They are kept out of the spotlight so the people higher up can bask in the glory. But that's typical of most businesses.

What it is based on, however, are the physical products we have from both companies. The engineers of both are far more capable than what is being shown, but what is being shown is cold, hard evidence. Law authorities can only go by evidence. I'm doing the same. And AMD's evidence shows that they gain more from the node.

We're now looking at Ryzen with 3.60 GHz base, and 4.00 GHz turbo. In comparison to the 6900K's 3.20 GHz base, and 3.50 GHz turbo.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> Bulldozer performance was exactly what it was. Many of us shut out the marketing fluff as smoke and mirrors where everyone has an opinion and flares up over everything.
> 
> We still would likely have shunned it regardless of what marketing did. It didn't compete.


Bulldozer performance was exactly what it was. But it wasn't made for home use. Putting it against a Phenom in a server environment, it would have sailed ahead. The fault of that is not on the engineers, but the marketing.

Of course, being a high-frequency-low-IPC design, Bulldozer suffered from initial low clock speeds, but Piledriver fixed that.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> That's unbelievably impressive if AMD really is achieving 3.6/4.0 with an 8 core part inside a 95 watt TDP. I remember last year some people here were claiming that Zen would be lucky to hit 2.8Ghz on the Global Foundry 14nm process.
> 
> Either GloFlo's 14nm isn't nearly as bad as some thought, or AMD's engineers are just ridiculously disciplined after being forced to squeeze every drop of performance they could out their 28nm APUs for years.


I wouldn't doubt it, AMD had to make a turd shine for how many generations now? Having similar node to Intel must be a breath of fresh air, but they wouldn't forget all they learned previously.


----------



## STEvil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I'm saying that for the last time: DO NOT INSULT ENGINEERS! That is like insulting an AI with regard to its intuitive capacity. You never know whether it can crack a smile or would run wild on you.
> For reference: you are insulting fine gentlemen like these. They do not deserve it. I wish I was in his class. As a side note, we have a singer called Ibo who said, "Was there an _'Oxford'_ in Urfa when we didn't go to college?"


I wouldnt mind insulting a few engineers, but I admit the ones I would be insulting are goofs building agricultural machinery. I have a real beef with some of them for the weak structural parts on some equipment!


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STEvil*
> 
> I wouldnt mind insulting a few engineers, but I admit the ones I would be insulting are goofs building agricultural machinery. I have a real beef with some of them for the weak structural parts on some equipment!


Don't you just want to grab them by the neck sometimes and say, _"Back to formula?







"_ to them? I wish.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> ^I responded to this as I normally would, but it seems it had bad taste and got removed. I won't self-censure myself for your liking.


I know what you mean. One of my posts was modified too without reason. It seems mods here like to modify your posts without stating reasons in the edit. That would be much appreciated.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> I wouldn't doubt it, AMD had to make a turd shine for how many generations now? Having similar node to Intel must be a breath of fresh air, but they wouldn't forget all they learned previously.


Excavator was a sign of things to come. The X4 845 is clocked 600 MHz lower than the 7890K, and provides 95% of the performance. Alternatively, there's the A12-9800 which is clocked 100 MHz lower (while being slightly faster), but the extra thermal headroom was used for the graphics instead. An increase from 866 MHz to 1108 MHz. All while reducing power consumption by ~40%. The A12 itself is an amazing accomplishment.

Which brings me to its existence in the first place. It sets a _very_ good baseline to represent the absolute best of what I'll call the _Bulldozer era_. And suddenly, we have Zen performing 55% better, per core than it.

In addition to that, 14 nm also allows AMD to almost two-fold that efficiency gain from Steamroller to Excavator, while doubling core count, increasing throughput and implementing SMT.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STEvil*
> 
> I wouldnt mind insulting a few engineers, but I admit the ones I would be insulting are goofs building agricultural machinery. I have a real beef with some of them for the weak structural parts on some equipment!


We can insult Francois Piednoel. No one would feel bad about it.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> That image is displaying an average performance metric from the specified test suite. That's also 8 Zen cores versus 4 Skylake cores.
> http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts/#evaluation-computational-workloads
> 
> On a clock-for-clock basis, Zen is definitely behind Skylake. It might even be behind Broadwell slightly, but Zen clocking higher can alleviate that.


Definitely?
I saw ZEN beating broadwell E


----------



## mat9v

The whole table of results is based on Cinebench 15 run score for ryzen at 3.3Ghz of 1188points. That result was proven to be a hoax and so this whole fictional table is no better.
To quote: "Update [12:28 p.m on Dec. 20, 2016]: The original post over at Baidu forums has now been deleted and the moderator confirmed that the benchmarks were fake - actually run by using Xeon E5 2660 processor. I'm not deleting the post as it could help others who might have thought it to be a legitimate leak"
In gaming test Ryzen is still shown as clocking at 3.5Ghz while the test author stated that their sample never clocked more than 3.3Ghz in any test. And even then in Ghz projection it goes head to head with i7-6700K.


----------



## nakano2k1

Gyah... I have my Ryzen hypetrain ticket in hand and i'm so close to boarding, but I just can't. I'll take the train that takes more time, yet stops at all the stations along the way.

That having been said, the attempt by certain people to skew facts and numbers is truly poetry in motion. Well done boys!


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Definitely?
> I saw ZEN beating broadwell E


Broadwell-E isn't Skylake-S.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> The whole table of results is based on Cinebench 15 run score for ryzen at 3.3Ghz of 1188points. That result was proven to be a hoax and so this whole fictional table is no better.


That is partially true. It assumes the 1188 score is true (stated in the article), but it also makes perfect sense based on the FX-8350 score. I wanted to use something as close to 1188 as possible, and that worked out very well. This is the reason it was used, not because the score was a known fake. (Incidentally, I did check up the Xeon scores on HWBOT before writing the article, and they do seem to align pretty well.)

I'll be sure to write a statement about this in an upcoming article.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> In gaming test Ryzen is still shown as clocking at 3.5Ghz while the test author stated that their sample never clocked more than 3.3Ghz in any test.


I wouldn't rely on the gaming section for much. 3.50 GHz is the turbo for 1 to 3 cores, and 5 out of the 7 games don't scale much (if at all) beyond four cores. It's probably one of the worst game test suites I've seen.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> And even then in Ghz projection it goes head to head with i7-6700K.


It would sit at 117.9%, which is behind the i7-6700K.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Gyah... I have my Ryzen hypetrain ticket in hand and i'm so close to boarding, but I just can't. I'll take the train that takes more time, yet stops at all the stations along the way.
> 
> That having been said, the attempt by certain people to skew facts and numbers is truly poetry in motion. Well done boys!


What's being skewed?


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Broadwell-E isn't Skylake-S.


how much faster is SKYLAKE than broadwell e?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> how much faster is SKYLAKE than broadwell e?


Roughly 4%. It's a small amount, but so is Haswell to Broadwell. Skylake to Kaby Lake is practically 0%.

*Edit:*
4%, plus the increase in clock frequencies.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> how much faster is SKYLAKE than broadwell e?


the whole premise is wrong. There's been no independent comparison of Zen with BWE or any other chip in the same core class. Once some samples are provided by AMD, we'll know what it can do in an unbiased setting. Unless zen has very good OC headroom it will struggle to keep pace with a 2 year old 5960X.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> The whole table of results is based on Cinebench 15 run score for ryzen at 3.3Ghz of 1188points. That result was proven to be a hoax and so this whole fictional table is no better.
> To quote: "Update [12:28 p.m on Dec. 20, 2016]: The original post over at Baidu forums has now been deleted and the moderator confirmed that the benchmarks were fake - actually run by using Xeon E5 2660 processor. I'm not deleting the post as it could help others who might have thought it to be a legitimate leak"
> In gaming test Ryzen is still shown as clocking at 3.5Ghz while the test author stated that their sample never clocked more than 3.3Ghz in any test. And even then in Ghz projection it goes head to head with i7-6700K.


A 5 ghz 8350 will garner around 800 pts in cinebench R15 . All things being equal and figuring a 40% increase in performance per clock the 16 thread Zen would score 2240 in CB15 at the same clocks That's being conservative because the 40 percent was supposed to be the difference between excavator and Zen not Piledriver.

At that rate you could at about 25% to those extrapolated benchmark numbers. Closer to 33% if you use 40% + of excavator.


----------



## Pesmerrga

Gamers Nexus posted a Gigabyte AM4 motherboard video and at 4m 54s or so says that the platform is launching before March 31st.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pesmerrga*
> 
> Gamers Nexus posted a Gigabyte AM4 motherboard video and at 4m 54s or so says that the platform is launching before March 31st.


Good spot thanks.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> A 5 ghz 8350 will garner around 800 pts in cinebench R15 . All things being equal and figuring a 40% increase in performance per clock the 16 thread Zen would score 2240 in CB15 at the same clocks That's being conservative because the 40 percent was supposed to be the difference between excavator and Zen not Piledriver.
> 
> At that rate you could at about 25% to those extrapolated benchmark numbers. Closer to 33% if you use 40% + of excavator.


CEO said they have achieved mote than 40%


----------



## kx11

i feel like AMD is reborn again

i don't look at as an inferior company against intel/Nvidia anymore


----------



## mtcn77

Too much salt can give you stomach cancer.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i feel like AMD is reborn again
> 
> i don't look at as an inferior company against intel/Nvidia anymore


I told you, AMD has leverage whereas Intel & Nvidia have a spine each.


----------



## IRobot23

LGA 2011-3 clearly offers more than AM4, LGA 1151. Basically AM4 offers same as LGA 1151. There is no-way that I would pick lets say 6C/12T RYZEN (AM4) at 400$/€ over i7 5820K or i7 6800K. Since I would be paying at least 130-160$/€ for MB and with AM4 I would take really fast ram (3600MHz+).

So I hope that prices for AM4 wont be compare to LGA 2011-3, but to LGA 1151. Summit Ridge doesnt have iGPU and it should be much cheaper. Hopefully AMD starts selling from quad core and UP in Q1. I would expect 4C/4T for ~120$.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> A 5 ghz 8350 will garner around 800 pts in cinebench R15 . All things being equal and figuring a 40% increase in performance per clock the 16 thread Zen would score 2240 in CB15 at the same clocks That's being conservative because the 40 percent was supposed to be the difference between excavator and Zen not Piledriver.
> 
> At that rate you could at about 25% to those extrapolated benchmark numbers. Closer to 33% if you use 40% + of excavator.


779 cb @ 5000 MHz.

That fits perfectly in-line with my graph for the FX-8350.

640 * (50 / 41) = 780 cb

According to Cinebench R15, Piledriver to Excavator is roughly 12.8%.

Not sure why you're doubling the result though.

---

I didn't intend to draw any set-in-stone conclusions from the 1188 result. So please don't take the figures literal or too seriously. The article points out that it's only assuming that it's legitimate (and it was already known that it isn't). It was used merely because it aligns well with the FX-8350 result on HWBOT (1196), and I primarily used it to calculate performance-per-clock, and performance-per-watt figures, which are in-line with what we expect, and what CPC obtained.

However, it is known that it was the result from a Xeon E5-2660. Results for the Xeon on HWBOT also point to that.

The updated article will use a completely different baseline. Everything will be fine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> CEO said they have achieved mote than 40%


Yes, the current IPC increase is expected to be 55%.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Broadwell-E isn't Skylake-S.
> That is partially true. It assumes the 1188 score is true (stated in the article), but it also makes perfect sense based on the FX-8350 score. I wanted to use something as close to 1188 as possible, and that worked out very well. This is the reason it was used, not because the score was a known fake. (Incidentally, I did check up the Xeon scores on HWBOT before writing the article, and they do seem to align pretty well.)
> 
> I'll be sure to write a statement about this in an upcoming article.
> I wouldn't rely on the gaming section for much. 3.50 GHz is the turbo for 1 to 3 cores, and 5 out of the 7 games don't scale much (if at all) beyond four cores. It's probably one of the worst game test suites I've seen.
> It would sit at 117.9%, which is behind the i7-6700K.


It is not partially true, it's fully true - those benchmarks were fake, we simply do not know what the score would be. I do not care a whit about 8350 scores and how much faster than older AMD core it is, the only thing that matters is whether it is faster or not then i7-6900k and for that we have some indications. 3.5 was not the turbo for any number of cores, the author stated that the CPU never boosted above 3.3Ghz.
Game engine scaling as it was in those game benchmarks is skewed against multicore CPUs so Ryzen scoring as it did is more of a pleasant surprise, anyway I agree with that part of the tests








That ES overclocked to 4.0Ghz base would get 117.6% of I5-6600K base and within 1% of i7-6700K. That of course depends on frequency scaling but single thread performance mostly scales well with frequency so it should hold. On top of that we get overclocking headroom, dynamic or static of unknown value and we are close to typical overclocking value for i7-6900K of 4.5Ghz. Some folks from hardwareluxx got a look at Engineering sample used at CES and F3 stepping got 3.6 base and 3.9 boost. There are also some rumors of F4 stepping that boosts to 4.0 Ghz https://www.techpowerup.com/229339/amd-ryzen-8-core-16-thread-cpu-es-now-run-at-3-6-ghz-base-3-9-ghz-boostLink
All in all I would not worry too much about final performance of those chips but rather the final price - I would love to buy one and I hope it's not for 999$


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> It is not partially true, it's fully true - those benchmarks were fake, we simply do not know what the score would be.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> The whole table of results is based on Cinebench 15 run score for ryzen at 3.3Ghz of 1188points.


That was in response to this quote (because the graph is also there to show the scores of other CPUs). As stated before, the 1188 result was really only used because it was very close to the 1196 result of the FX-8350 @ 7.65 GHz. My primary use for it was to calculate cb/MHz and cb/W. I was aware that it was more than likely fake before I started writing the article, but decided to remain slightly skeptical just to be safe.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> 3.5 was not the turbo for any number of cores, the author stated that the CPU never boosted above 3.3Ghz.


Which CPU are you talking about here?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Game engine scaling as it was in those game benchmarks is skewed against multicore CPUs so Ryzen scoring as it did is more of a pleasant surprise, anyway I agree with that part of the tests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ES overclocked to 4.0Ghz base would get 117.6% of I5-6600K base and within 1% of i7-6700K.


Agreed. To be honest, in a review using two series of high-core-count processors, the entire game suite should have consisted of games that can benefit from 6 and 8 cores. Also, the Zen chip at 4.00 GHz would achieve 117.9%; still below Skylake unfortunately, and only with twice the cache.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Some folks from hardwareluxx got a look at Engineering sample used at CES and F3 stepping got 3.6 base and 3.9 boost. There are also some rumors of F4 stepping that boosts to 4.0 Ghz https://www.techpowerup.com/229339/amd-ryzen-8-core-16-thread-cpu-es-now-run-at-3-6-ghz-base-3-9-ghz-boostLink


Yup, I heard about them. I'm going to mention the better-than-expected clock speeds in the upcoming article. The computer used to show off Vega had a similar processor. Also, everyone seems to confuse the OPN with the stepping. Ex is A stepping, and Fx is B stepping. B1 to be specific.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> All in all I would not worry too much about final performance of those chips but rather the final price - I would love to buy one and I hope it's not for 999$


It's always fun to predict, and then [hopefully] we'll be surprised when Zen is released. I'm already very impressed by what AMD has achieved. I wouldn't be shocked if said CPUs were being sold for $800 with a watercooling kit either.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> LGA 2011-3 clearly offers more than AM4, LGA 1151. Basically AM4 offers same as LGA 1151. There is no-way that I would pick lets say 6C/12T RYZEN (AM4) at 400$/€ over i7 5820K or i7 6800K. Since I would be paying at least 130-160$/€ for MB and with AM4 I would take really fast ram (3600MHz+).
> 
> So I hope that prices for AM4 wont be compare to LGA 2011-3, but to LGA 1151. Summit Ridge doesnt have iGPU and it should be much cheaper. Hopefully AMD starts selling from quad core and UP in Q1. I would expect 4C/4T for ~120$.


My pc is x99. But what will x99 have over Ryzen platform other than quad channel ddr4?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> But what will x99 have over Ryzen platform other than quad channel ddr4?


No future upgrades. On the other hand, do you really need them, if you have a Haswell-E or Broadwell-E chip? Probably not.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> No future upgrades. On the other hand, do you really need them, if you have a Haswell-E or Broadwell-E chip? Probably not.


I have Xeon 6 core 2.4ghz. Great chip but if Ryzen platform is priced right I will jump ship

So the advantage is no future upgrades?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> So the advantage is no future upgrades?


No, you asked what LGA2011-3 has, that AM4 doesn't. The answer is no future upgrades.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> No, you asked what LGA2011-3 has, that AM4 doesn't. The answer is no future upgrades.


Lol oh oh


----------



## Blameless

LGA-2011v3 has more I/O (28 or 40 PCI-E lanes, not including DMI) and up to 22c/44t processors, as well as more memory channels/DIMM slots.

None of this is particularly relevant to most users here, and for whom it is relevant, they already know their needs.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> LGA-2011v3 has more I/O (28 or 40 PCI-E lanes, not including DMI) and up to 22c/44t processors, as well as more memory channels/DIMM slots.
> 
> None of this is particularly relevant to most users here, and for whom it is relevant, they already know their needs.


I like that x99 supports that many threads but the processors arent affordable and that might be my reason for going zen.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> LGA-2011v3 has more I/O (28 or 40 PCI-E lanes, not including DMI) and up to 22c/44t processors, as well as more memory channels/DIMM slots.


I think LGA2011-3 only has 4 more PCIe lanes than AM4. But yeah, the Xeon would be a reason to get the Intel platform.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I think LGA2011-3 only has 4 more PCIe lanes than AM4. But yeah, the Xeon would be a reason to get the Intel platform.


The AM4 boards I've seen so far look like they have 20, possibly 24, CPU attached lanes.

Anyway, the only platform issue I might run into with AM4 is the number of DIMM slots. I don't need tons of PCI-E lanes and eight fast cores would b e sufficient for what I do, but I've been waiting for DDR4 prices to fall again so I can put 64-128GiB of memory in my other X99 system.


----------



## czin125

Why don't they just OC both chips to 4.2 via multiplier and then disable features like C1E / EIST / Turbo? Wouldn't that be more accurate? It still takes a few ms to activate the turbo.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> Why don't they just OC both chips to 4.2 via multiplier and then disable features like C1E / EIST / Turbo? Wouldn't that be more accurate? It still takes a few ms to activate the turbo.


It would require for them to be actually smart about it.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> The AM4 boards I've seen so far look like they have 20, possibly 24, CPU attached lanes.


Zen definitely supports at least 32 PCIe lanes with X370 chipsets.










Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Possibly 40.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen definitely supports at least 32 PCIe lanes with X370 chipsets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly 40.


Hmm, but only 24 are of 3.0 type, rest is only 2.0, right?


----------



## bigjdubb

I thought they had 32 3.0 lanes. I think that 8 of them will be used up for NVME on most boards, which puts it in line Z170 etc.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Still waiting on Asus to roll out their IX Code equivalent for the X370 platform. Full cover or bust.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Hmm, but only 24 are of 3.0 type, rest is only 2.0, right?


Nope, all are PCIe 3.0.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> The AM4 boards I've seen so far look like they have 20, possibly 24, CPU attached lanes.
> 
> Anyway, the only platform issue I might run into with AM4 is the number of DIMM slots. I don't need tons of PCI-E lanes and eight fast cores would b e sufficient for what I do, but I've been waiting for DDR4 prices to fall again so I can put 64-128GiB of memory in my other X99 system.


That doesn't sound right at all


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> That doesn't sound right at all


The rest are off the chip set.


----------



## 12Cores

i7-6800K retails for $449, curious to see if amd will be able to launch a 6/12 chip below this price. Intel could easily drop the 6800k or 6850k to $399, at the end of the day they will have to recoup some of their R&D cost. What would be nuts is 6/12 core part for $339.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> i7-6800K retails for $449, curious to see if amd will be able to launch a 6/12 chip below this price. Intel could easily drop the 6800k or 6850k to $399, at the end of the day they will have to recoup some of their R&D cost. What would be nuts is 6/12 core part for $339.


It's inevitable that Cannonlake-E's Coffee Lake's 6-core will debut around this price as Intel finally shifts the low-tier enthusiast chips to the mainstream, but I don't think Intel would quite want that just yet. It will eat too much into the Hx platform sales. The 6700K is currently $343.


----------



## mat9v

Please look at offi
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Nope, all are PCIe 3.0.


Please look at official AMD "slides" about chipsets - all PCI Express lines out of chipsets are version 2.0
Here.
Slides are of better quality

Look close at 2nd slide - X370 Enthusiast chipset Crossfire/SLI has 2x8PCIe Gen 3.0 lines - that means 16 lines of PCIe out of CPU
On the 3rd slide (Futures enabled through our chipsets) we have 8 PCIe lines, all of them are Gen 2.
So in all 24 lines and only 16 are Gen 3.
There are additional 4 lines Gen 3 for SATAe but they are not usable for Graphic card.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Please look at official AMD "slides" about chipsets - all PCI Express lines out of chipsets are version 2.0
> Here.
> Slides are of better quality
> 
> Look close at 2nd slide - X370 Enthusiast chipset Crossfire/SLI has 2x8PCIe Gen 3.0 lines - that means 16 lines of PCIe out of CPU
> On the 3rd slide (Futures enabled through our chipsets) we have 8 PCIe lines, all of them are Gen 2.
> So in all 24 lines and only 16 are Gen 3.


That link you gave even agrees with me.

http://techreport.com/news/31228/amd-shows-off-ryzen-ready-chipsets-and-motherboards-at-ces
Quote:


> By our math, it looks like pairing an X370 chipset with a Ryzen CPU nets you six SATA ports, *32 lanes of PCIe connectivity*, two USB 3.1 ports, and ten USB 3.0 ports.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

I wonder if there will be a large section of the tech media that are going to try and ultimately stab us consumers in the back for money by being overly critical of Ryzen even if it does nip at the heels of BW. I hope that if reviewers are not honest with their recommendations people bring hell and let them know about it, as the industry suffers as a result. At least we'll see some honest appraisals of the CPUs here with them in the hands of trusted forum members.

I don't know what media to trust these days. Look what happened to the 480. There's reasons outside of brand strength why the 480 only has something like 1/5th the marketshare of the 1060 even though any informed tech enthusiast knows it's the overall better card and would have known that at launch as well. It's criminal. Go back and read TechPowerUp's review. The 480 was hammered in lots of reviews comparatively speaking for 40W more power draw and less performance in old-a$$ DX11 games from 2014/15 compared to the 1060. Nvidia's card would have probably outsold it anyway but not to this extent if the media weren't so harsh (or paid-up).

If the Ryzen 8C/16T CPU is $150-200 cheaper than the 6900K and performs within 5-10% of it on CPU tasks it should be unequivocally the recommended buy. This should certainly be the case when it comes to gaming website reviews where 5-10% is totally unnoticeable for 99% of gamers.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> If the Ryzen 8C/16T CPU is $150-200 cheaper than the 6900K and performs within 5-10% of it on CPU tasks it should be unequivocally the recommended buy. This should certainly be the case when it comes to gaming website reviews where 5-10% is totally unnoticeable for 99% of gamers.


Going back to the New Horizon event, AMD showed off Ryzen getting an average of 2 fps more than the 6900K in Battlefield 1.


----------



## kalelovil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> That link you gave even agrees with me.
> 
> http://techreport.com/news/31228/amd-shows-off-ryzen-ready-chipsets-and-motherboards-at-ces


The Summit Ridge die has 24 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 routed to external interfaces: 16 for graphics (can be split into 2x8), 4 for direct CPU connection to NVMe, SATA and/or PCI-E slots, and 4 to connect to a southbridge.
The X370 chipset can provide an additional 8 lanes of PCI-E 2.0 across slots (which share its PCI-E 3.0 4x uplink with all other chipset I/O).

You can't add the chipset PCI-E to the CPU PCI-E, because 4 lanes from the CPU are required for the chipset connection.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kalelovil*
> 
> The Summit Ridge die has 24 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 routed to external interfaces: 16 for graphics (can be split into 2x8), 4 for direct CPU connection to NVMe, SATA and/or PCI-E slots, and 4 to connect to a southbridge.
> The X370 chipset can provide an additional 8 lanes of PCI-E 2.0 across slots (which share its PCI-E 3.0 4x uplink with all other chipset I/O).


That makes 36 32, which is in-line with what I said. Nowhere in my post does it state that they are all for GPUs.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen definitely supports at least 32 PCIe lanes with X370 chipsets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly 40.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Going back to the New Horizon event, AMD showed off Ryzen getting an average of 2 fps more than the 6900K in Battlefield 1.


The difference could very well be negligible, like under 5 fps. After all is said and done and AMD get this close to Intel's desktop CPUs, Ryzen has been a major achievement for them which should bring success (as long as it overclocks to 4+ghz and performance scales well with that).


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> The difference could very well be negligible, like under 5 fps. After all is said and done and AMD get this close to Intel's desktop CPUs, Ryzen has been a major achievement for them which should bring success (as long as it overclocks to 4+ghz and performance scales well with that).


I'm not denying it. Zen is already an accomplishment, considering the kind of scale of difference in performance we've seen thus far. To get an equal scale from Intel, would mean going back to Penryn, from Kaby Lake. AMD has managed the same IPC increase in two years, that Intel has managed in 9 years.

That being said, it should also be seen as somewhat impressive that an AMD processor is outperforming a top-of-the-line Intel processor in a game that scales nicely with 8 cores. Unlike that Canard PC review, this demonstration actually showed us performance in a game where high core counts can actually make a [positive] difference.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I'm not denying it. Zen is already an accomplishment, considering the kind of scale of difference in performance we've seen thus far. To get an equal scale from Intel, would mean going back to Penryn, from Kaby Lake. AMD has managed the same IPC increase in two years, that Intel has managed in 9 years.
> 
> That being said, it should also be seen as somewhat impressive that an AMD processor is outperforming a top-of-the-line Intel processor in a game that scales nicely with 8 cores. Unlike that Canard PC review, this demonstration actually showed us performance in a game where high core counts can actually make a [positive] difference.


It's more a matter of the Canard review being a low clocked sample with a few bugs. This is near final silicon with clocks even higher than Broadwell-E.
Canard's game choice hardly changes anything.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> It's more a matter of the Canard review being a low clocked sample with a few bugs. This is near final silicon with clocks even higher than Broadwell-E.
> Canard's game choice hardly changes anything.


Five of the seven games don't scale at all beyond 4 cores. That's not a good suite of games to use, to test multi-thread performance of low-clocked high-core-count processors such as Broadwell-E and Zen.


----------



## IRobot23

http://www.infoworld.com/video/73015/amd-drops-huge-news-on-ryzen-overclocking-and-core-counts-at-ces-2017

Good news. Ony X370 will support dual GPU configuration.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Ony X370 will support dual GPU configuration.


Makes sense.


----------



## JackCY

Too bad that clip on cooler mount is still 2 side only instead of 4 side mount. On the other hand I think most coolers require one to replace it anyway I think which is a shame. A proper 4 side universal mount that can be used by any cooler would have been great and remove the crazy mounting procedure of most coolers.

I wonder how much they got paid for changing the dimensions and breaking compatibility with all coolers we have so far. I bet someone wanted to boost the cooler sales. At least they could have made it a square mount not yet another rectangle :/

The wait until summer release is gonna be endless.

Why is everyone showing benches at MT loads and never shows an ST one? Is the single core performance that bad to hide it?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Too bad that clip on cooler mount is still 2 side only instead of 4 side mount. On the other hand I think most coolers require one to replace it anyway I think which is a shame. A proper 4 side universal mount that can be used by any cooler would have been great and remove the crazy mounting procedure of most coolers.
> 
> I wonder how much they got paid for changing the dimensions and breaking compatibility with all coolers we have so far. I bet someone wanted to boost the cooler sales. At least they could have made it a square mount not yet another rectangle :/
> 
> The wait until summer release is gonna be endless.
> 
> Why is everyone showing benches at MT loads and never shows an ST one? Is the single core performance that bad to hide it?


I would expect some of the more popular cooler manufacturers out there to provide an AM4 adaption bracket upon release, or something similar. I read that AMD was definitely trying to get them to play ball, so those with coolers for AM3+ and FM2+ can be used with AM4.

Zen is releasing before the end of March.

Grab the Athlon X4 845 single-thread score from a benchmark, and multiply it by 1.55. There you have an approximation (at 3.80 GHz).


----------



## FoamyV

Really looking forward to Ryzen, bought an EK Predator 360 aio in anticipation, guess you can't use any of the previous coolers at all?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Really looking forward to Ryzen, bought an EK Predator 360 aio in anticipation, guess you can't use any of the previous coolers at all?


AMD is looking into getting AM4 adaption brackets made for existing coolers.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> That makes 36, which is in-line with what I said. Nowhere in my post does it state that they are all for GPUs.


Are you somehow unable to count?
"The Summit Ridge die has 24 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 routed to external interfaces: 16 for graphics (can be split into 2x8), 4 for direct CPU connection to NVMe, SATA and/or PCI-E slots, and 4 to connect to a southbridge.
The X370 chipset can provide an additional 8 lanes of PCI-E 2.0 across slots (which share its PCI-E 3.0 4x uplink with all other chipset I/O)."

It has 16 lines of PCIe 3.0 for graphics and not even one more - this is what is important for gamers - it will only do *SLI/Crossfire at 2x8* and not more.
The rest is mostly irrelevant, sure we get 4 lines for NVMe and from the last 4 lines, the chipset makes it's own 8 lines of PCIe 2.0 along with using it for other purposes.

Beside you can't count PCIe lines twice - those 4 that go to chipset and 4 to NVMe can't be used for anything else so at most you could count:
16 for GPU, 4 for NVMe - that's 20 and then 8 lines from chipset but they are only Gen 2.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Are you somehow unable to count?
> "The Summit Ridge die has 24 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 routed to external interfaces: 16 for graphics (can be split into 2x8), 4 for direct CPU connection to NVMe, SATA and/or PCI-E slots, and 4 to connect to a southbridge.
> The X370 chipset can provide an additional 8 lanes of PCI-E 2.0 across slots (which share its PCI-E 3.0 4x uplink with all other chipset I/O)."
> 
> It has 16 lines of PCIe 3.0 for graphics and not even one more - this is what is important for gamers - it will only do *SLI/Crossfire at 2x8* and not more.
> The rest is mostly irrelevant, sure we get 4 lines for NVMe and from the last 4 lines, the chipset makes it's own 8 lines of PCIe 2.0 along with using it for other purposes.
> 
> Beside you can't count PCIe lines twice - those 4 that go to chipset and 4 to NVMe can't be used for anything else so at most you could count:
> 16 for GPU, 4 for NVMe - that's 20 and then 8 lines from chipset but they are only Gen 2.


Last time I checked how math worked, 24 + 8 came to 32.

I was correct with my post when I stated there were at least 32. So cheers.

*Edit:*
Incidentally, I figured out how I counted 36 (incorrectly). I missed the colon! My bad.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I do count them because they exist. Whether we can use them or not, is irrelevant. Whether there are 32 or 36, I was correct with my post when I stated there were at least 32. So cheers.


Very "forward thinking" of you. Yes, count what you can't use







So if I put external PCIe card into my PCIe slot then I suddenly get 16 more lines? Good joke. Cheers.
Won't discuss anything more on that low level.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Very "forward thinking" of you. Yes, count what you can't use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I put external PCIe card into my PCIe slot then I suddenly get 16 more lines? Good joke. Cheers.
> Won't discuss anything more on that low level.


Edited my post after I realized what I just typed!


----------



## mat9v

So from now on I will only gripe that it will only do 2x8 for SLI - that is what counts for me anyway.
And I will ignore existing 8 lines that go to chipset and NVMe that I can't use.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> So from now on I will only gripe that it will only do 2x8 for SLI - that is what counts for me anyway.
> And I will ignore existing 8 lines that go to chipset and NVMe that I can't use.


Regardless of what we count, there are 24 _usable_, and that sucks to be honest. That's something Intel has on AMD.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Regardless of what we count, there are 24 _usable_, and that sucks to be honest. That's something Intel has on AMD.


Look at it from the Apple perspective - they are helping drive adoption of NVMe by locking those lanes.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Look at it from the Apple perspective - they are helping drive adoption of NVMe by locking those lanes.


Sure, but I was hoping for AMD to rival the Broadwell-E platform almost exactly (won't happen with dual-channel memory, but besides that). The more one-ups AMD has, the better. And the slide did say "ultimate graphics card bandwidth." That's not really 2×8, when Intel can give you 2×16.

*LGA2011-3 (R3)* - 76.8 GB/s
*PGA1331 (AM4)* - 51.2 GB/s

Let's hope the APUs have HBM.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Sure, but I was hoping for AMD to rival the Broadwell-E platform almost exactly (won't happen with dual-channel memory, but besides that). The more one-ups AMD has, the better. And the slide did say "ultimate graphics card bandwidth." That's not really 2×8, when Intel can give you 2×16.
> 
> *LGA2011-3 (R3)* - 76.8 GB/s
> *PGA1331 (AM4)* - 51.2 GB/s
> 
> Let's hope the APUs have HBM.


Yeah, broadwell were the best APUs.*wink*, *wink* AMD was totally not victorious there.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Yeah, broadwell were the best APUs.*wink*, *wink* AMD was totally not victorious there.


The memory bandwidth is holding back those integrated graphics chips though. They have the potential to be much better.

I'm still waiting to see how powerful the A12-9800 iGPU is compared to the A10-7890K, i7-5775C and i7-6785R.

No one has even reviewed the Skylake chip.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> The memory bandwidth is holding back those integrated graphics chips though. They have the potential to be much better.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see how powerful the A12-9800 iGPU is compared to the A10-7890K, i7-5775C and i7-6785R.
> 
> No one has even reviewed the Skylake chip.


OH, tell me: then, why did Intel end broadwell, asap? Search your feelings, young @cjwilson. _- You know it to be true..._


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> OH, tell me. Why did Intel end broadwell asap?


Because it was delayed and by the time it gained traction, Skylake was here. That being said, Skylake equivalents didn't arrive until April last year.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Because it was delayed and by the time it gained traction, Skylake was here. That being said, Skylake equivalents didn't arrive until April last year.


Then why is broadwell a better general processor than Skylake when it was essentially recalled from the market at the eve of its success?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Then why is broadwell a better general processor than Skylake when it was essentially recalled from the market at the eve of its success?


What? When did I say that?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> What? When did I say that?


You didn't. It just was.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> OH, tell me: then, why did Intel end broadwell, asap? Search your feelings, young @cjwilson. _- You know it to be true..._


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Then why is broadwell a better general processor than Skylake when it was essentially recalled from the market at the eve of its success?


wow - this has really become a fanboi thread... but I guess it is to be expected since ZEN has yet to launch and no one can really do a proper comparison to any cpu, even AMD's own at this point. If AMD can match a 6900K in *OUR* hands, then they have an accomplishment.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> wow - this has really become a fanboi thread... but I guess it is to be expected since ZEN has yet to launch and no one can really do a proper comparison to any cpu, even AMD's own at this point. If AMD can match a 6900K in *OUR* hands, then they have an accomplishment.


Please, you are spoiling me.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> You didn't. It just was.


To be honest, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake are so incredibly close to each other in performance that I would argue Haswell is better than both.

But you seemed to have misinterpreted my posts. I was talking about integrated graphics performance. In such a case, Skylake's is better (possibly the best, but who f**king knows because no one has reviewed it).

I was saying I wanted an iGPU comparison between the A10-7890K, i7-5775C, i7-6785R and A12-9800, just to see if AMD has recaptured the iGPU performance crown (Intel set the bar high [regardless of how much it costs], but if anything will recapture the crown, it's the A12).


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Until Raven Ridge arrives.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> To be honest, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake are so incredibly close to each other in performance that I would argue Haswell is better than both.
> 
> But you seemed to have misinterpreted my posts. I was talking about integrated graphics performance. In such a case, Skylake's is better (possibly the best, but who f**king knows because no one has reviewed it).
> 
> I was saying I wanted an iGPU comparison between the A10-7890K, i7-5775C, i7-6785R and A12-9800, just to see if AMD has recaptured the iGPU performance crown (Intel set the bar high [regardless of how much it costs], but if anything will recapture the crown, it's the A12).


_"But, the cream rise to the top!"_ *oh yeah!* Cards stacked against the "APU Zen" cpu in 2017, yeah, but let me say this out loud: _*AND LET ME POINT, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, LISA SU*_ that @mtcn77 is not happy with your decision, yeah.
Unjustifiably in a position I would rather not be in... _but the cream rise to the top!_ Oh, yeah! You know, yeah I do @cjwilson; outside interference... _in my moment of glory_ and now I'm living in a nightmare, yeah.
And now: not only _'the peasant cpu'_ title must fall, but _'the master pc race championship belt!'_ Oh yeah? Because I am the cream... *the cream of the crop!* And there is no one... that does it better... _than the macho man randy savage!_ 'On-balance' & 'off-balance' doesn't matter; I'm better than you are! And I'm talking to, everyone in the internet now, and I'm even talking: _"to the president of the AMD"_, yeah!
_I'm on my way,_ and nothing is going to stop me! Nothing is going to stop me... nobody does it better.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> _"But, the cream rise to the top!"_ *oh yeah!* Cards stacked against the "APU Zen" cpu in 2017, yeah, but let me say this out loud: _*AND LET ME POINT, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, LISA SU*_ that @mtcn77 is not happy with your decision, yeah.
> Unjustifiably in a position I would rather not be in... _but the cream rise to the top!_ Oh, yeah! You know, yeah I do @cjwilson; outside interference... _in my moment of glory_ and now I'm living in a nightmare, yeah.
> And now: not only _'the peasant cpu'_ title must fall, but _'the master pc race championship belt!'_ Oh yeah? Because I am the cream... *the cream of the crop!* And there is no one... that does it better... _than the macho man randy savage!_ 'On-balance' & 'off-balance' doesn't matter; I'm better than you are! And I'm talking to, everyone in the internet now, and I'm even talking: _"to the president of the AMD"_, yeah!
> _I'm on my way,_ and nothing is going to stop me! Nothing is going to stop me... nobody does it better.


What drugs are you on? I have no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> What drugs are you on?


-"Here, I will tell you the truth: I have experimented with anabolic steroids before, yes I have. I did it when it was legal, I don't do it any more; it has been a long time since I did it. But, let me say something right now: it is like putting poison in your body - don't do it! Plus, it gave me a one terrible case of 'PMS'."








Stuffed vine leaves. I also brew great tea. I'll give you the recipe if you would like it.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Too bad that clip on cooler mount is still 2 side only instead of 4 side mount. On the other hand I think most coolers require one to replace it anyway I think which is a shame. A proper 4 side universal mount that can be used by any cooler would have been great and remove the crazy mounting procedure of most coolers.
> 
> I wonder how much they got paid for changing the dimensions and breaking compatibility with all coolers we have so far. I bet someone wanted to boost the cooler sales. At least they could have made it a square mount not yet another rectangle :/
> 
> The wait until summer release is gonna be endless.
> 
> Why is everyone showing benches at MT loads and never shows an ST one? Is the single core performance that bad to hide it?


What is wrong with a 2 side mounted cooler?


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What is wrong with a 2 side mounted cooler?


Maximum tension of such a mount is lower than for 4 sided mounting, and 2-sided is more prone to damaging mainboard due to stress.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Maximum tension of such a mount is lower than for 4 sided mounting, and 2-sided is more prone to damaging mainboard due to stress.


Lol.... Anything else negative to try and bring down AMD? Of all the reasons I think this is the most ridiculous. I used 2 side mount for many years and have never damaged a motherboard.


----------



## mat9v

Why would you think I was bringing AMD down, I was honestly answering question about physics. I very much hope to buy one of those new CPUs if they are priced within my budget








If ever I like to keep to the hard facts without personal bias and if something is my opinion I state it as such.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Why would you think I was bringing AMD down, I was honestly answering question about physics. I very much hope to buy one of those new CPUs if they are priced within my budget
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If ever I like to keep to the hard facts without personal bias and if something is my opinion I state it as such.


The 2 attachments are fixed to the board by 4 screws. So I don't understand the concern of 2 vs 4


----------



## mat9v

Then there is no concern.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Then there is no concern.


My only concern with boards is the itx or lack there of. I would like an itx board with the highest end chipset like that asrock x99.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> My only concern with boards is the itx or lack there of. I would like an itx board with the highest end chipset like that asrock x99.


I'm pretty sure those are gonna be the X300 boards, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> I'm pretty sure those are gonna be the X300 boards, correct me if I'm wrong.


It would make sense. I can't see a reason to have these SFF chipsets if it wasn't the case.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> What drugs are you on? I have no idea what you are trying to say.


I have no idea either. I read his post 5 times and I'm not sure what language I was reading anymore.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I would be very curious to see how new Ryzen-based laptops will do. Any timeline on the mobile variants?


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I would be very curious to see how new Ryzen-based laptops will do. Any timeline on the mobile variants?


Reportedly Q3, during back-to-school season. Falcon-NW is actually putting desktop Kaby Lake in their laptops, I'd be very interested to see if they do the same with Ryzen. If Falcon-NW can cool those desk heaters, there's no reason they should have much difficulty in cooling desktop Raven Ridge.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Reportedly Q3, during back-to-school season. Falcon-NW is actually putting desktop Kaby Lake in their laptops, I'd be very interested to see if they do the same with Ryzen. If Falcon-NW can cool those desk heaters, there's no reason they should have much difficulty in cooling desktop Raven Ridge.


That would entirely depends on if Clevo/Sager will make a laptop with AM4 chipset.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I would be very curious to see how new Ryzen-based laptops will do. Any timeline on the mobile variants?


None at this time.

The interest is definitely there though


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> None at this time.
> 
> The interest is definitely there though


With FreeSync 2... you bet. I think AMD should totally split with the mobile market and launch ARM client devices with FreeSync 2 displays. You carry around the display streaming content with the "main" pc. The components are already there. AMD just has to realize what they have is sufficient.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> That would entirely depends on if Clevo/Sager will make a laptop with AM4 chipset.


Laptop motherboards aren't to standardized form factors, so all it'd take is Falcon-NW or another boutique deciding they want to put in a large enough order.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> With FreeSync 2... you bet. I think AMD should totally split with the mobile market and launch ARM client devices with FreeSync 2 displays. You carry around the display streaming content with the "main" pc. The components are already there. AMD just has to realize what they have is sufficient.


I would be vehemently opposed to that idea.

The dominance by Intel/Nvidia is showing and the lack of options for enthusiasts that want something better than the BGA crap being offered. The alternative to BGA shouldnt have to be a desktop processor in a laptop.

The 6820hk seems to top off around 4.2ghz when previous generations didnt have much issues hitting 4.5 or 5.0ghz for benching.

The mobile market doesnt need for AMD to completely abandon it, It needs AMD to actually invest in it. The 7970m is STILL basically the best that consumer can expect from AMD save for Apple users that have the m295x which is what, 2012?

Unless of course they finally rolled out the RX 470 with alienware, but I havent seen any reviews yet for at when GPU's are concerned.

The enthusiast basically have 2 options now when it comes to non soldered machine and both are desktop processors. Its a crappy time to be a mobile enthusiast.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Maximum tension of such a mount is lower than for 4 sided mounting, and 2-sided is more prone to damaging mainboard due to stress.


Both brackets seem to be held to the motherboard by 2 bolts.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Unless of course they finally rolled out the RX 470 with alienware, but I havent seen any reviews yet for at when GPU's are concerned.


It's available to order. I was checking on it last week.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> I would be vehemently opposed to that idea.
> 
> The dominance by Intel/Nvidia is showing and the lack of options for enthusiasts that want something better than the BGA crap being offered. The alternative to BGA shouldnt have to be a desktop processor in a laptop.
> 
> The 6820hk seems to top off around 4.2ghz when previous generations didnt have much issues hitting 4.5 or 5.0ghz for benching.
> 
> The mobile market doesnt need for AMD to completely abandon it, It needs AMD to actually invest in it. The 7970m is STILL basically the best that consumer can expect from AMD save for Apple users that have the m295x which is what, 2012?
> 
> Unless of course they finally rolled out the RX 470 with alienware, but I havent seen any reviews yet for at when GPU's are concerned.
> 
> The enthusiast basically have 2 options now when it comes to non soldered machine and both are desktop processors. Its a crappy time to be a mobile enthusiast.


This one doesn't need voicing out in the open, but I really think arm has won it this time around. 1K, %104 srgb displays have been around since 2013, however the one thing that makes them great is they are 0.3kg and not 1.5x, 2 or 3 times less mobile than that. Contemporaries to the same standards have started coming in 2014! What is more striking is that though arm was the original one to have made ground, contemporaries that launched in 2014 & 2015 commanded twice the premium. I don't want to wait in order to use the latest technology - doesn't sound _'pcmr'_ does it? More like pcmmr...
Now, the next frontier I presume is going to be the streaming display interface latency. If you have tried it, it is not very responsive. FreeSync 2 can address this issue. If such mobile display hubs come with Freesync 2 and enable more display pipeline responsivity - along with HDR and all that goes so well with these intensely lit displays - AMD would have found a new market. Newcomers just cannot integrate to the same competition, you either have the display technology on par, or you are out. Mobile has gone fully tablet-form in my opinion.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Laptop motherboards aren't to standardized form factors, so all it'd take is Falcon-NW or another boutique deciding they want to put in a large enough order.


Pretty much. Clevo will probably make AM4 chipset version of their existing high end laptops if there is an expected demand. We will see.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen definitely supports at least 32 PCIe lanes with X370 chipsets.


A meaningless statement without understanding the topology.

Skylake supports 36 lanes with Z170 chipsets, but with 20 of them hanging off the PCH, competing for bandwidth and with the PCH and only connecting to the CPU via 4x lanes, it's not remotely accurate to treat all the lanes as equivalent.

Thus far, every X370 board I've seen images of only has 16-20 CPU connected lanes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Last time I checked how math worked, 24 + 8 came to 32.
> 
> I was correct with my post when I stated there were at least 32. So cheers.


By your reckoning, Intel's mainstream platforms would have 36. This is technically accurate, but still extremely misleading.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> By your reckoning, Intel's mainstream platforms would have 36. *This is technically accurate, but still extremely misleading.*


Marketing is never misleading or dishonest to convey a better product.


----------



## OutlawII

Looks to me like Bulldozer 2.0,all show and no go! Good luck AMD


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Looks to me like Bulldozer 2.0,all show and no go! Good luck AMD


Wow. Bulldozer and RYZEN...


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Looks to me like Bulldozer 2.0,all show and no go! Good luck AMD


In what way is the Ryzen hype train similar to Bulldozer? I was interested in Bulldozer when it released and fell on it's face. So far this looks nothing like that. The "leaks" look competitive.


----------



## nakano2k1

I'm really interested in how the additional functions / technologies baked into the new Ryzen architecture is going to help in the portable market. Are they only going to attack the mainstream Intel chips, or are they going to try to go for the ULV market as well.

Turbo clocks, IPC and their new infinity fabric tech is going to be so vital. Who knows, they may have something else up their sleeves as well.









I know some may disagree with this, but maybe bulldozer was a blessing in disguise? The crappy architecture made them have to focus on the most minuscule aspects of power conservation in order to improve power / performance numbers. Now that they have a seemingly good architecture, it should really help them.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Who knows, they may have something else up their sleeves as well.


They do: XFR.

If you remember back to that Battlefield 1 demonstration, Ryzen @ 3.40 GHz (fixed) was outpacing Intel's i7-6900K @ 3.50 GHz (all-core turbo) by around 2 fps. That is with all turbo features disabled on the Ryzen chip.

Games are going to show the weakest performance for high-core-count chips like these, and Battlefield 1 is a good game to test high-core-count chips because it can actually use them properly.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> I'm really interested in how the additional functions / technologies baked into the new Ryzen architecture is going to help in the portable market. Are they only going to attack the mainstream Intel chips, or are they going to try to go for the ULV market as well.
> 
> Turbo clocks, IPC and their new infinity fabric tech is going to be so vital. Who knows, they may have something else up their sleeves as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know some may disagree with this, but maybe bulldozer was a blessing in disguise? The crappy architecture made them have to focus on the most minuscule aspects of power conservation in order to improve power / performance numbers. Now that they have a seemingly good architecture, it should really help them.


Yes, AMD chips may have a lot of potential here, temperature based overclocking would potentially offer higher final performance then what Intel is doing - it may not only look better in benchmarks but in real life also - imagine temporary jump of one core up to 5Ghz when opening some page or doing something that locks only one thread - all in a 45W notebook CPU for example, would be much better than Intel can manage, and if they could also gather task on less cpus and boost them instead of spreading task between all cores we could get much more responsive system on top of it being much cooler. I have a lot of experience with that in Android mobile space where every core active is a power drain and heat source and it's a lot of fun to balance loads to get best performance with least power use


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> They do: XFR.
> 
> If you remember back to that Battlefield 1 demonstration, Ryzen @ 3.40 GHz (fixed) was outpacing Intel's i7-6900K @ 3.50 GHz (all-core turbo) by around 2 fps. That is with all turbo features disabled on the Ryzen chip. And Battlefield 1 is a good game to test high-core-count chips like these because it can actually use them all.


What do you think the core count they'll introduce to the mobile market will look like? Do you think there will be a huge clock discrepancy between base and turbo?

I'm really curious how they're going to handle large core count if they move in that direction.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Yes, AMD chips may have a lot of potential here, temperature based overclocking would potentially offer higher final performance then what Intel is doing - it may not only look better in benchmarks but in real life also - imagine temporary jump of one core up to 5Ghz when opening some page or doing something that locks only one thread - all in a 45W notebook CPU for example, would be much better than Intel can manage, and if they could also gather task on less cpus and boost them instead of spreading task between all cores we could get much more responsive system on top of it being much cooler. I have a lot of experience with that in Android mobile space where every core active is a power drain and heat source and it's a lot of fun to balance loads to get best performance with least power use


This

I remember initially when piledriver was released there was a graph that showed how the architecture scaled with speed. At low clocks, the architecture performed really well and in multithreaded scenarios was able to perform very well. At higher clocks (as we remember with the 9590) the power consumption was totally out of control. The only problem was that the IPC was nowhere near what it needed to be. Now that it seems that the IPC is in the ballpark where they need it to be, if they're able to multithread tasks effectively while still maintaining low clocks they could really have a power / performance champion on their hands.


----------



## mat9v

I wonder if it's possible for Ryzen to put whole cores offline, it would allow for unprecedented flexibility - put an 8 core into a laptop at 2.4Ghz and allow it to boost to 5Ghz for low core count while discreetly turning half of the cores off for low threaded tasks. They speak so much about thousands of measuring points in CPU, it would pair great with such a way of working.
I think that they will configure CPUs to low standard and a lot of boost. Not that Intel is doing anything else - mobile CPUs are normally boosting at about 1Ghz.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> I wonder if it's possible for Ryzen to put whole cores offline, it would allow for unprecedented flexibility - put an 8 core into a laptop at 2.4Ghz and allow it to boost to 5Ghz for low core count while discreetly turning half of the cores off for low threaded tasks. They speak so much about thousands of measuring points in CPU, it would pair great with such a way of working.
> I think that they will configure CPUs to low standard and a lot of boost. Not that Intel is doing anything else - mobile CPUs are normally boosting at about 1Ghz.


They do this now with core parking. Sometimes my 8320e will only run on two (2+2) cores when i'm doing mundane tasks. Then it will scale up to 4 (4+4) when i'm encoding or playing multithreaded games.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> What do you think the core count they'll introduce to the mobile market will look like? Do you think there will be a huge clock discrepancy between base and turbo?
> 
> I'm really curious how they're going to handle large core count if they move in that direction.


2C/4T @ 5, 15, 25 and 35 W
4C/8T @ 35 and 45 W

Stock clocks will look something like Excavator. This is because mobile Zen will fit into the 3 W TDP while powered down. At full power, though, expect similar to KBL.

@mat9v is onto something with his 5.00 GHz single-core turbo statement. However, AMD also has to fit a more powerful GPU into the envelope too, so don't expect too much from mobile Zen. I predict 4.20 GHz on one core, while the GPU is clocked down to 300 MHz.

On the desktop side of things, there will be no chip below quad-core; at least not straight away. Bristol Ridge fills the gap for a dual-core in performance, compared to Zen.

Do I see a hexa-core for laptops, like Coffee Lake will bring? Yes and no. Only under 45 and 55 W TDPs, and with larger clock discrepancies than dual- and quad-core.

Incidentally, what is the market demand for a hexa-core chip in a laptop? If it's reasonable, you might see it before Coffee Lake.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> I wonder if it's possible for Ryzen to put whole cores offline, [...]


Zen can completely shut down cores individually.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen can completely shut down cores individually.


That is a very good news









I currently have i7-4930xm in my laptop that I use daily and I would welcome 8 cores here with open arms, I would even accept more noise (what would be a problem with cooling 95W of CPU if my GPU sux over 120W and does not overheat?) to have such power in my laptop. It's DTR anyway







that I have keyboard, mouse and a large monitor connected to, only taking it with me when I need to go on the road


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> If you remember back to that Battlefield 1 demonstration, Ryzen @ 3.40 GHz (fixed) was outpacing Intel's i7-6900K @ 3.50 GHz (all-core turbo) by around 2 fps. That is with all turbo features disabled on the Ryzen chip.
> 
> Games are going to show the weakest performance for high-core-count chips like these, and Battlefield 1 is a good game to test high-core-count chips because it can actually use them properly.


Too bad nobody can test that application, I once wrote, to test cores properly. It might be simple, but it shows real multicore speeds in thread environment without sychronization. If it can run Java application fast, it can run other stuff fast as well. If not, I still remember how 5GHz bulldozer had problems to keep up with quad core from Intel.

I wonder why AMD is comparing to 6900K, is it because of number of cores? HEDP is quite a bit slower, because it's two generation older. Outpacing BW-E by a little, doesn't mean anything, on the other hand showing Ryzen can beat up 6700K, they might show they have a point.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Too bad nobody can test that application, I once wrote, to test cores properly. It might be simple, but it shows real multicore speeds in thread environment without sychronization. If it can run Java application fast, it can run other stuff fast as well. If not, I still remember how 5GHz bulldozer had problems to keep up with quad core from Intel.
> 
> I wonder why AMD is comparing to 6900K, is it because of number of cores? HEDP is quite a bit slower, because it's two generation older. Outpacing BW-E by a little, doesn't mean anything, on the other hand showing Ryzen can beat up 6700K, they might show they have a point.


Because they're comparing to a chip with the same core count? Also skylake IPC is like 3% better than BW-E or something.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I wonder why AMD is comparing to 6900K, is it because of number of cores? HEDP is quite a bit slower, because it's two generation older. Outpacing BW-E by a little, doesn't mean anything, on the other hand showing Ryzen can beat up 6700K, they might show they have a point.


Simply put, they're comparing against 6900K because they will price it at $800 and tell us that it's much cheaper than Intel. Also they need to compare an 8c/16t to intel's offer. Fair enough.
But people is dreaming about AMD becoming Robin Hood or something like that.
btw, outpacing the 6900K means a lot.


----------



## nakano2k1

Well, I think they can trickle it down. The fact that they're showing that their 8c 16t cpu can compete with Intels 6900k is meant to show confidence in IPC and multithread performance. Recently, the whole 5ghz overclocking on air (albeit only on one core right now) was there to show that there's still room left in the tank.

Put the two things together and it makes the rest of the skus very compelling. As you lower core count, you can bump clocks while still maintaining the same TDP more or less. The fact that all of the lower sku CPUs will also be able to overclock with the right board makes things very interesting.


----------



## mat9v

One thing I'm wondering about, if the chips are really max temperature controlled without any definite turbo limits then how exactly will we be able to compare them with Intel? We can of course set some frequency and disable turbo on both but that will only tell us what is the performance difference at some stated speed, IPC difference between them - but it will not tell us how they compare at their max speed because we have no way to control how the chip boosts with cooling efficiency. It will make comparing them really difficult.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> One thing I'm wondering about, if the chips are really max temperature controlled without any definite turbo limits then how exactly will we be able to compare them with Intel? We can of course set some frequency and disable turbo on both but that will only tell us what is the performance difference at some stated speed, IPC difference between them - but it will not tell us how they compare at their max speed because we have no way to control how the chip boosts with cooling efficiency. It will make comparing them really difficult.


While I agree, the reason you had to start comparing was because the default settings of the chip hadn't involved any kind of such 'smart' monitoring. AMD's "Cool and Quiet" implementation and "Core Performance Boost" has been substandard in total contradistinction to Intel's pure success with the Speed-Step Technology. Let's give AMD the benefit of doubt because _their chips were awesome_ when you disabled these _'not-very-attuned-controls'_.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> While I agree, the reason you had to start comparing was because the default settings of the chip hadn't involved any kind of such 'smart' monitoring. AMD's "Cool and Quiet" implementation and "Core Performance Boost" has been substandard in total contradistinction to Intel's pure success with the Speed-Step Technology. Let's give AMD the benefit of doubt because _their chips were awesome_ when you disabled these _'not-very-attuned-controls'_.


I'm not in any way comparing to previous AMD offerings. I'm talking about Ryzen and it's dynamic core frequency control. With Intel we know that processor X will boost to 3.x for 8 cores, 3.y for 4 cores and so on. I just wonder if we will have such controls for AMD (and it does not seem to be the case) - for the moment Ryzen seems to be temperature controlled, so it may boost to 5Ghz one one cooler and 4.8Ghz on another cooler. We will have a problem comparing performance between Intel and AMD. Only when forced to common frequency with turbo disabled we will be able to compare sensibly and get their IPC difference, but we will not be able to check core scaling simply because we will not be (probably) able to force max core frequency and control how many cores reach that frequency. Unless AMD provides really advanced software to control that, which I hope thet do







Also it seems that disabling core auto-control on new chips will be a big no-no








"contradistinction" - would it not be better to use "contrast"?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> I'm not in any way comparing to previous AMD offerings. I'm talking about Ryzen and it's dynamic core frequency control. With Intel we know that processor X will boost to 3.x for 8 cores, 3.y for 4 cores and so on. I just wonder if we will have such controls for AMD (and it does not seem to be the case) - for the moment Ryzen seems to be temperature controlled, so it may boost to 5Ghz one one cooler and 4.8Ghz on another cooler. We will have a problem comparing performance between Intel and AMD. Only when forced to common frequency with turbo disabled we will be able to compare sensibly and get their IPC difference, but we will not be able to check core scaling simply because we will not be (probably) able to force max core frequency and control how many cores reach that frequency. Unless AMD provides really advanced software to control that, which I hope thet do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also it seems that disabling core auto-control on new chips will be a big no-no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "contradistinction" - would it not be better to use "contrast"?


Why bother if it does it predeterminately for you?








PS: I sometimes confabulate for lost vocabulary.


----------



## mat9v

For pure knowledge of course. To easier measure power use over work done over time taken - for some of us it is important








Ah







So do I, English is not my primary language


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> For pure knowledge of course. To easier measure power use over work done over time taken - for some of us it is important


I know the feeling. Believe me, when you shed the doubt "what if it isn't working up to its full potential" it is all easy. I do admit, they were hit and miss, but you have to give it to the process engineers: they were literally pushing the envelope when 32-28nm was all we had.
PS: the 6950 that didn't come with voltage monitoring was the biggest tragedy of all time for me. The card was 50% faster than the 6870 and if only I could undervolt it to 0.95v it would, according to my napkin math skills, run at the same power level as the 6870. That is crazy to think I didn't have that option in previous cycles. Back when 4890's were launching, you had to specifically go out of your way, to find the "one" card version that had enabled voltage monitoring toolset. It is that powerful of an asset when you can run the [email protected] power threshold if you only had the option to reduce voltages to 0.95v(I even contemplated how they would scale 6870 [email protected] & 6950 [email protected] - 6950 was still 50% faster!).


----------



## mat9v

I always liked AMD, used their CPUs till AMD64 was too slow. But work and play waits for nobody







So it was to Intel camp for a time (a long one it seems) and now I will be happy to jump back to AMD, even if they were to be a bit slower. But it will take time for me to do because I strictly use notebooks of DTR size and will have to wait for something in that flavor. Maybe a system for gaming for my children....
I really hope for 8 core CPU for notebooks, yes with Vega or at least 1080 GPU and 17-18 inch screen. I have 4930xm CPU now and 980m GPU so not a lot of pressure to upgrade, but 8 cores... and 1080 is 130% faster then 980.... but then I have 3xSSD Raid and will not be able to migrate that, but new notebook would have NVMe certainly.... decisions, decisions







So hard


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> This one doesn't need voicing out in the open, but I really think arm has won it this time around. 1K, %104 srgb displays have been around since 2013, however the one thing that makes them great is they are 0.3kg and not 1.5x, 2 or 3 times less mobile than that. Contemporaries to the same standards have started coming in 2014! What is more striking is that though arm was the original one to have made ground, contemporaries that launched in 2014 & 2015 commanded twice the premium. I don't want to wait in order to use the latest technology - doesn't sound _'pcmr'_ does it? More like pcmmr...
> Now, the next frontier I presume is going to be the streaming display interface latency. If you have tried it, it is not very responsive. FreeSync 2 can address this issue. If such mobile display hubs come with Freesync 2 and enable more display pipeline responsivity - along with HDR and all that goes so well with these intensely lit displays - AMD would have found a new market. Newcomers just cannot integrate to the same competition, you either have the display technology on par, or you are out. Mobile has gone fully tablet-form in my opinion.


I'll pass. As an enthusiast I want more options, not less.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> I'll pass. As an enthusiast I want more options, not less.


You don't have more options? Stock, Air, H2O, SS, LN2...


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> *Too bad nobody can test that application, I once wrote, to test cores properly. It might be simple, but it shows real multicore speeds in thread environment without sychronization.* If it can run Java application fast, it can run other stuff fast as well. If not, *I still remember how 5GHz bulldozer had problems to keep up with quad core from Intel.*
> 
> *I wonder why AMD is comparing to 6900K, is it because of number of cores? HEDP is quite a bit slower, because it's two generation older.* Outpacing BW-E by a little, doesn't mean anything, on the other hand showing Ryzen can beat up 6700K, they might show they have a point.


A reliable program like this is pretty much what we need. One test for stressing the processor in single-thread (ensuring that the single-thread turbo is enabled), and one for multi-thread (with multi-thread turbo on all cores). It would also give us a more solid basis to obtain turbo frequencies for each state, considering both companies really suck at giving the turbo bins.

A Bulldozer-era chip at 5.00 GHz was never going to reach Intel levels of performance due to the architecture design. If you go back to NetBurst, you'll see that in some scenarios, AMD's Athlon 64 was outpacing the Pentium 4, with a clock frequency deficit of 1.40 GHz. That's practically another Athlon 64! (What I'm trying to say, is that Bulldozer was another NetBurst, although not quite as poor. Zen, like Broadwell, goes back to the Athlon 64 roots of throughput, instead of frequency.)

And they're comparing Ryzen SR7 to the i7-6900K because as seems to be the case, the AMD chip is outperforming Intel's chip, and with a 100 MHz lower clock too. That means that Zen IPC is above Broadwell in best-case scenarios. In worst-case scenarios such as AVX2, it'll be below Haswell (and more likely above Ivy Bridge). (Incidentally, when you can use AVX2, Haswell can be up to 50% faster than Ivy Bridge, but without it, a mere 7%.)

I've stressed this before, but it's very important that AMD competes core-for-core with Intel. Bulldozer to Excavator didn't do that because they were heavily focused on multi-threaded workloads (originally intended for server environments, where multi-threading is king). A quad-core Zen needs to compete with a quad-core Broadwell or Skylake. We really don't need another situation where AMD needs six cores to compete with Intel's four. So far, from what has been shown (minus my Cinebench calculations [which are being redone as we speak]), AMD is fighting Intel, core-for-core, which is excellent news for all.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Because they're comparing to a chip with the same core count? *Also skylake IPC is like 3% better than BW-E or something.*


I've calculated that Skylake IPC is 2.2% above Broadwell in single-thread, and 8.9% above in multi-thread. This isn't accounting for Skylake's much higher clocks.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Well, I think they can trickle it down. The fact that they're showing that their 8c 16t cpu can compete with Intels 6900k is meant to show confidence in IPC and multithread performance. *Recently, the whole 5ghz overclocking on air (albeit only on one core right now) was there to show that there's still room left in the tank.*
> 
> Put the two things together and it makes the rest of the skus very compelling. *As you lower core count, you can bump clocks while still maintaining the same TDP more or less.* The fact that all of the lower sku CPUs will also be able to overclock with the right board makes things very interesting.


While 5.00 GHz is most definitely going to be an overclock-only achievement, I do think we might see something around 4.50 GHz achievable via XFR. With the stock Wraith cooler, 4.20 GHz wouldn't be too high a target to obtain.

Also, in regards to the quad- and hexa-core SKUs, while I do think we'll see higher clocks on these parts, there will also be parts with the same clocks as the octa-core SKUs, simply due to binning.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> *One thing I'm wondering about, if the chips are really max temperature controlled without any definite turbo limits then how exactly will we be able to compare them with Intel?* We can of course set some frequency and disable turbo on both but that will only tell us what is the performance difference at some stated speed, IPC difference between them - but it will not tell us how they compare at their max speed because we have no way to control how the chip boosts with cooling efficiency. It will make comparing them really difficult.


I believe XFR is going to work loosely in the same way that Turbo Boost Max 3.0 does. By that, I mean we still have Turbo Boost 2.0 guaranteed turbo frequencies, but Max 3.0 is like an additional turbo state that only applies to one core (in addition to 2.0's single-core turbo). For instance, the i7-6900K's Turbo Boost 2.0 single-core turbo is 3.70 GHz, but under Turbo Boost Max 3.0, it can reach 4.00 GHz.

So, essentially, we'll have Turbo Core 4.0 guaranteed states, and XFR will likely also be a guaranteed state, but will only be measured by AMD on the stock cooler to achieve a frequency that can be used for marketing purposes. It's the only controlled variable they have for a technology that's fully automated like this. Beyond the marketed guaranteed XFR frequency, it's like an open-world game. You're free to do whatever you want with it. Get it up to whatever you can, based on your cooling solution.









Needless to say, I am hoping very much that AMD follows Intel in providing turbo bins for each of the turbo states. I hate how the APUs (and Intel's CPUs) are marketed. It's only _after_ they are released, that Intel will give you the turbo bins via their website. And AMD doesn't give you them at all! Not good practice from either company.


----------



## mat9v

I would pay premium for an ability to set voltage for every multiplier







And bonus for locking CPU to multiplier (without ability to move up or down) to test stability of that multiplier with voltage set. I can do that in Android with most CPUs, why the hell can't I do it in PCs. What is more, I can easily write a program that tests stability of frequency changes from any to any multiplier since that is the most common cause of CPU errors, arriving at new frequency with too low voltage - voltage spikes when stabilizing voltage at new frequency. I can do it with every core, alone or all of them. Why the hell can't I do this here?
Frustrating...


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> You don't have more options? Stock, Air, H2O, SS, LN2...


Your missing the point entirely, that or just trolling me.

Your welcome to explain your point so that I may address it.


----------



## Marios145

At this point even if amd would buy the 6900k from intel and re-sell it brand-new for 300$ with an AMD sticker, some people would still buy the one from intel, because the electrons move slower if it's AMD.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> At this point even if amd would buy the 6900k from intel and re-sell it brand-new for 300$ with an AMD sticker, some people would still buy the one from intel, because the electrons move slower if it's AMD.


That's probably closer to some peoples' thought process than I would want to believe.









It'd probably be Trump's excuse.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> At this point even if amd would buy the 6900k from intel and re-sell it brand-new for 300$ with an AMD sticker, some people would still buy the one from intel, because the electrons move slower if it's AMD.


Haven't you heard, it follows a totally different pathway, so that the optimisation could not be guaranteed to work.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> At this point even if amd would buy the 6900k from intel and re-sell it brand-new for 300$ with an AMD sticker, some people would still buy the one from intel, because the electrons move slower if it's AMD.


If you bought the AMD one the pins would be on the cpu , and everybody knows how bad that is ! Gotta have the pins in the mobo socket .

That said , there is a reason I have not bought a 6900k and a Geforce 1080 or 2 - The current asking price exceeds what I consider to be their value .
I am using SLI GTX 780s on my 2160p monitor so I could use an upgrade ( on Z97 and 4790k ) but not happening , so if AMD prices near there they will be ignored too !
If they price well they will sell me at least 1 cpu ( Top model ) and 2 Graphics cards possibly 3 as I will want one for the Z97 and one for the AMD system ( maybe 2 for the AMD system if they crossfire well)
And most likely a mini ITX system as well , just because I want to !

Edit - By the way for the less intellectually capable the pins comment is sarcasm !


----------



## Marios145

Having the pins on the CPU makes it a lot heavier, so it can't go as fast as an intel.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> Having the pins on the CPU makes it a lot heavier, so it can't go as fast as an intel.


Nah, that's not that.
It's because all those pins make it less aerodynamicus perfectus and it requires moar powar to go as fast


----------



## JackCY

Single core Cinebench result, come on! Where are you.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Single core Cinebench result, come on! Where are you.


My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.


----------



## hunterwindu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.


Wouldn't that put it roughly on par with skylake @ same clocks?


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hunterwindu*
> 
> Wouldn't that put it roughly on par with skylake @ same clocks?


Yeah, that sounds too optimistic.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hunterwindu*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that put it roughly on par with skylake @ same clocks?
Click to expand...

I really didn't bother to compare, just did the math based on what my piledriver scores in cb r15. And it's nothing more than a guess at this point.


----------



## jclafi

If your guess is right, then Ryzen is a true performance monster !

=D
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.


----------



## hunterwindu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> I really didn't bother to compare, just did the math based on what my piledriver scores in cb r15. And it's nothing more than a guess at this point.


Don't get me wrong - I hope it comes out guns blazing and extremely close to Skylake (at same clocks, of course). Looking forward to exchanging knowledge in the official Ryzen thread after the launch.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jclafi*
> 
> If your guess is right, then Ryzen is a true performance monster !
> 
> =D
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.
Click to expand...

Well I have as much right to be wrong as anyone ( and at least as much abiity lol ).










EDIT: If someone wants to do the math based on what excavator scores + 40 % and correct for clockspeed to 4 ghz on the Zen they might be closer than my guess.
Edit: 8350 score at 4ghz = 105 excavator advantage in single core 15% 40% better performance from zen 105 x 1.15 x 1.4 = 169.05


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.


Thanks, I'm getting this from DC (=HW) i5 @ 4.5GHz:

Code:



Code:


CBCPU1=179.700170
CBCPUX=702.864171

Which is close to stock SL i7 single thread. 190 for stock KL. And OCed these attack 200+.

Will see how it goes overall though CB so far wasn't a bad indicator.


----------



## OutlawII

Im glad everyone is so excited about this,but according to the benches they still wont beat Intel. So what are you gaining? A second string cpu? This will not drive prices down im afraid. Not to mention im sure it was a cherry picked cpu.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Im glad everyone is so excited about this,but according to the benches they still wont beat Intel. So what are you gaining? A second string cpu? This will not drive prices down im afraid. Not to mention im sure it was a cherry picked cpu.


Lol


----------



## jclafi

I understand your point and it´s a valid one.

Put in this perspective, if you overclock the CPU and gain another 15%, and that should be possible, we ended up with S.T of 194.

A very good performance chip.

Let´s hope all this come true.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> Well I have as much right to be wrong as anyone ( and at least as much abiity lol ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: If someone wants to do the math based on what excavator scores + 40 % and correct for clockspeed to 4 ghz on the Zen they might be closer than my guess.
> Edit: 8350 score at 4ghz = 105 excavator advantage in single core 15% 40% better performance from zen 105 x 1.15 x 1.4 = 169.05


Next
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Im glad everyone is so excited about this,but according to the benches they still wont beat Intel. So what are you gaining? A second string cpu? This will not drive prices down im afraid. Not to mention im sure it was a cherry picked cpu.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Im glad everyone is so excited about this,but according to the benches they still wont beat Intel. So what are you gaining? A second string cpu? This will not drive prices down im afraid. Not to mention im sure it was a cherry picked cpu.


Wow AMD can cherry pick CPUs so that they can have better performance at the same clocks than other CPUs with the same arch? They're wizards!


----------



## renx

I'm not concerned about cherry picked CPUs, but mostly about cherry picked benchmarks.
We all know that BF4 takes some extra advantage of multithreading.
Not saying it won't deliver with other games. Just waiting for massive third party benchmarks.
Great hopes, yes. Sold: Not yet.

Also, it may well be a $700+ CPU, in which case I'd have to see what the 6-core can do.

.


----------



## OutlawII

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I'm not concerned about cherry picked CPUs, but mostly about cherry picked benchmarks.
> We all know that BF4 takes some extra advantage of multithreading.
> Not saying it won't deliver with other games. Just waiting for massive third party benchmarks.
> Great hopes, yes. Sold: Not yet.
> 
> Also, it may well be a $700+ CPU, in which case I'd have to see what the 6-core can do.
> 
> .


Good point!


----------



## IRobot23

No money? Why would you waste much more money to get product 1 month earlier?


----------



## Fyrwulf

I have the Cinebench R15 single core score as 170.43 based upon my math. Keep in mind that my spreadsheet has relative performance right in between where the two timed benchmarks during New Horizon averaged out.

EDIT: If my estimate of where the 4 core part is going to clock is correct, Zen will be more powerful than Skylake.


----------



## Caldeio

300$ is where i'm at for a cpu, i do not want a 4 core again..

AMD is going with a 1000$ build philosophy..whatever that means


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My uneducated guess is around 170 @ stock clocks. But that's simply a guess at this point.


It's expected that Zen is to deliver close to 55% IPC improvement over Excavator, therefore you can take the score from the X4 845 or A12-9800, and multiply by 1.55 to gain a somewhat approximate score.

*X4 845 @ 3.80 GHz*
92 × 1.55 = 143

*A12-9800 @ 4.20 GHz*
96 × 1.55 = 149

I'll have a better approximation soon.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hunterwindu*
> 
> Wouldn't that put it roughly on par with skylake @ same clocks?


Skylake achieves 182 @ 4.20 GHz.

Therefore, Skylake is 22% ahead. Not likely; this is out somewhat.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> It's expected that Zen is to deliver close to 55% IPC improvement over Excavator, therefore you can take the score from the X4 845 or A12-9800, and multiply by 1.55 to gain a somewhat approximate score.
> 
> *X4 845 @ 3.80 GHz*
> 92 × 1.55 = 143
> 
> *A12-9800 @ 4.20 GHz*
> 96 × 1.55 = 149
> 
> I'll have a better approximation soon.
> Skylake achieves 182 @ 4.20 GHz.
> 
> Therefore, Skylake is 22% ahead. Not likely; this is out somewhat.


Well RYZEN should have around 70% or even faster FPU than Excavator. I think around 75%-80% boost for FPU tasks.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> 300$ is where i'm at for a cpu, i do not want a 4 core again..
> 
> AMD is going with a 1000$ build philosophy..whatever that means


Where did you see this "1000$ build philosophy"? Either way, a $300 cpu is typically in a $1000 build anyways so hopefully it means good pricing.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Where did you see this "1000$ build philosophy"? Either way, a $300 cpu is typically in a $1000 build anyways so hopefully it means good pricing.


Raja Koduri said that in his interview to PC World. I'm guessing that is what he is referring to.


----------



## mtcn77

AMD should make some 'envy' systems. This hype train is going nowhere without them. Let's see how Vega drives new 'custom resolutions.'


----------



## Shau76434

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Where did you see this "1000$ build philosophy"? Either way, a $300 cpu is typically in a $1000 build anyways so hopefully it means good pricing.


He starts talking about it @15:00


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Barca130*
> 
> Raja was talking in a video that his goal in 2017 was to build a 4k pc for a 1000$. Might indicate the pricing of Ryzen/Vega.
> 
> Edit: he starts talking about it @15:00


I like the baldy Mr. Eric Demers better, hence Qualcomm is on a warpath with AMD, imo. RajaMan doesn't look like he has special powers which I expect from AMD.







Though, if they put his face on the Wattman background in HD that would be awesome. He should put on a mask or something, special make up. The guy is too much down to earth.








PS: I think I'm salty because of his savage honesty @


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Barca130*
> 
> He starts talking about it @15:00


Someone stuff his mouth with money so they actually launch all the way too late products finally.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Wow, you guys managed to seriously misinterpret what he said. He said his 2017 New Years Eve "stretch resolution" was to see people be able to build a $1k system able to play VR.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Wow, you guys managed to seriously misinterpret what he said. He said his 2017 New Years Eve "stretch resolution" was to see people be able to build a $1k system able to play VR.


$1K isn't affordable for majority of people.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> $1K isn't affordable for majority of people.


Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


That's household income, not individual income. Say you're spending 20k~30k a year on utilities and housing, 5k on food, 10~20k for insurance/payments/maintenance on 2 cars, Then medical expenses, clothing, maybe a kid or two, taxes, etc., it adds up. Some people make room for a PC, some people might use that for some other luxury, some might invest it, some are already living beyond their means before they even consider buying a PC.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


Don't confuse median with gross avgerages. The median wage in the US per person is $26,695. This tells us a lot since the median household income is at $50,500. Since the Census data looks at households, this data hones in on individual wage earners. 66 percent of Americans earn less than $41,212.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/laptops-too-expensive*
> 
> Sales of premium laptops with prices over $700 shrank by a modest 4 percent, but sales of midrange laptops with prices between $300 and $700 fell by a remarkable 19 percent


Over $700 is considered a premium product.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


I don't know anyone who replace laptops yearly. Not even the rich I know.


----------



## fatmario

replacing laptop every year


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I'm not concerned about cherry picked CPUs, but mostly about cherry picked benchmarks.
> We all know that BF4 takes some extra advantage of multithreading.
> Not saying it won't deliver with other games. Just waiting for massive third party benchmarks.
> Great hopes, yes. Sold: Not yet.
> 
> Also, it may well be a $700+ CPU, in which case I'd have to see what the 6-core can do.
> 
> .


I will not be surprised if they sell it at around $700 , but if they do they have lost my interest .
What I already have will see me through ( and with what I have I do not need Microspy Malware 10 )


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> I will not be surprised if they sell it at around $700 , but if they do they have lost my interest .
> What I already have will see me through ( and with what I have I do not need Microspy Malware 10 )


Windows 10 isn't that bad. You can disable nearly everything during initial install.


----------



## pony-tail

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Windows 10 isn't that bad. You can disable nearly everything during initial install.


Not quite everything ( There are a couple of programs that disable the rest )
But - even if you do disable it Windows update re-enables bits of every update nearly .
More trouble than it is worth - 7 works ( as does Linux Mint most of the time )


----------



## mat9v

That is why you should disable Windows Update too







Only re-enable it when you want, install updates, disable again and disable spying. I've been playing that cat and mouse game in my son's PC, for myself I stick to W7


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Im glad everyone is so excited about this,but according to the benches they still wont beat Intel. So what are you gaining? A second string cpu? This will not drive prices down im afraid. Not to mention im sure it was a cherry picked cpu.


It's all about performance/price ratio. If it's only 10% slower but 30% (or more) cheaper, that's a win in my book. Especially if said 10% performance deficit wouldn't even be noticeable in real life outside of placebo effects.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> It's all about performance/price ratio. If it's only 10% slower but 30% (or more) cheaper, that's a win in my book. Especially if said 10% performance deficit wouldn't even be noticeable in real life outside of placebo effects.


Price vs performance is rarely if ever a perfectly linear relationship. Sometimes a 10% performance improvement costs 1000% more, and sometimes it's worth that price, especially for high end stuff, and not just in computers. The point is, you can only compare price at difference performance levels if you account for the use case. It works the other way too. Sometimes a 100% improvement in performance isn't worth a 1% increase in price.

Say your work relies on computation and 10% of your day is spent waiting on the computer to process something. A 10% increase in performance will save you about 20 hours over the course of a year. How much is that time worth?


----------



## mat9v

In that case it may be worth paying premium, it often is for work related / critical use cases. For home / entertainment and similar not so much except small percentage of users that want to have the fastest hardware because they can and are able to afford it.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Price vs performance is rarely if ever a perfectly linear relationship. Sometimes a 10% performance improvement costs 1000% more, and sometimes it's worth that price, especially for high end stuff, and not just in computers. The point is, you can only compare price at difference performance levels if you account for the use case. It works the other way too. Sometimes a 100% improvement in performance isn't worth a 1% increase in price.
> 
> Say your work relies on computation and 10% of your day is spent waiting on the computer to process something. A 10% increase in performance will save you about 20 hours over the course of a year. How much is that time worth?


Oh please, how many people even on OCN fall into the "work relies on computation" category? I guess I could've specified "for most people", but that should be an implicit assumption.

I get the point you're trying to make, but nitpicking an edge use case just seems disingenuous.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Oh please, how many people even on OCN fall into the "work relies on computation" category? I guess I could've specified "for most people", but that should be an implicit assumption.
> 
> I get the point you're trying to make, but nitpicking an edge use case just seems disingenuous.


And for many of us who spend a great deal of time waiting for computers to process things, that work is done on dual-socket workstations and/or banks of GPU's. What is needed in my workplace has no bearing on my own PC-purchase decisions.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> And for many of us who spend a great deal of time waiting for computers to process things, that work is done on dual-socket workstations and/or banks of GPU's. What is needed in my workplace has no bearing on my own PC-purchase decisions.


Main stream components aren't for you. Simple


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Main stream components aren't for you. Simple


In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with the post I quoted


----------



## pony-tail

I do not own shares in any American companies !
That said now - I will be inclined to wait and see what happens to Intels pricing with competition around , I am expecting to see some return to normalcy after a bit of gouging while they had a free run .
That return to normalcy ( if it happens ) will have an effect on AMD's pricing .
Whether Intel believes Ryzen to be a flash in the pan or think it is a long term return to being competitive will have an effect too .
At this stage I have not seen any major Intel reaction to Ryzen , but unless their "industrial spies " already have all the info that they need , I would bett they ere trying to garner as much information as they can get from any source that is available .
Let the battle begin ! ( yeah I know , wishful thinking - and longing for times like when I bought my Opteron 185 (939) real competition - even if Intel cheated ! )


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


Well... The average per-person income in the UK is around £25k. Personally, I'm averaging £22k and I know quite a few people in NYC who are on similar figures in USD. By the time you've paid for housing (rent), heating, electricity, council tax, insurance, car tax, car insurance, car fuel, food, the ISP bill, mobile cellular bills and things for the kids, you're left with diddly-squat. Then factor in Brexit BS. A £1,000 computer is a dream for such people.

I had to make do with a Core2 laptop for 8 years before finally moving up to an APU-based desktop which I've had since June. Moving up to an RR3 or SR5 chip + RX 480 (or similar Vega card) is something I have planned, but that's nowhere near £1,000, and more than enough performance for most people.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fatmario*
> 
> replacing laptop every year


Indeed. Planned obsolescence must rule their brain.







Smartphones are the worst for this.

*P.S.* I love your avatar!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Say your work relies on computation and 10% of your day is spent waiting on the computer to process something. A 10% increase in performance will save you about 20 hours over the course of a year. How much is that time worth?


I'm sure some of those rich-ass YouTubers would love a chip like this to encode and process their videos. Most are using quad-core i7s with GTX 1080s or Titan XPs anyway. An $800 halo product is nothing when you're earning millions.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Whether Intel believes Ryzen to be a flash in the pan or think it is a long term return to being competitive will have an effect too .
> At this stage I have not seen any major Intel reaction to Ryzen , but unless their "industrial spies " already have all the info that they need , I would bett they ere trying to garner as much information as they can get from any source that is available .


Cannonlake and Coffee Lake (read: Cannonlake-E) are to bring simple incremental updates over Skylake and Kaby Lake. What follows in 2019 (Ice Lake) is when the architecture will go through its first major redesign since Sandy Bridge. So, Intel is pretty much stuck for now.

That being said, Intel spies are definitely gathering whatever they can, which is why AMD is holding the cards to their chest as much as possible.


----------



## mat9v

I think Intel is gouging prices as long as it can, why would they lower them ahead of actual AMD availability? What happens when new CPUs hit the street remains to be seen, but I think that Intel will lower it's prices in double digits %.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> That is why you should disable Windows Update too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only re-enable it when you want, install updates, disable again and disable spying. I've been playing that cat and mouse game in my son's PC, for myself I stick to W7


You can't just disable it, believe me I would have done this if you could as it's screwing up my system as well with constant download and failed update every.single.time I boot the computer for the day. This has been going on for 2-3 months now, and I had a similar problem for 2-3 months before that and only a fresh install fixed it.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> You can't just disable it, believe me I would have done this if you could as it's screwing up my system as well with constant download and failed update every.single.time I boot the computer for the day. This has been going on for 2-3 months now, and I had a similar problem for 2-3 months before that and only a fresh install fixed it.


Well, you can't do it easily and officially







Remove all downloaded update files and block required internet addresses in firewall - what it can't find it can't download and install. Just search for guides.
Worst case scenario, go "Insider" and install Enterprise version, then you can do much more with updates.


----------



## LazarusIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Don't confuse median with gross avgerages. The median wage in the US per person is $26,695. This tells us a lot since the median household income is at $50,500. Since the Census data looks at households, this data hones in on individual wage earners. 66 percent of Americans earn less than $41,212.


For income, median is the appropriate metric to use since income data is extremely right-skewed. And, up and down the income spectrum, affordable means a lot of different things! I mean... look at MC Hammer. He probably can't afford a $1000 computer right now but over my lifetime I've made much less than him and I could go buy one right now. Broad, sweeping generalizations never tell the whole story.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Oh please, how many people even on OCN fall into the "work relies on computation" category? I guess I could've specified "for most people", but that should be an implicit assumption.
> 
> I get the point you're trying to make, but nitpicking an edge use case just seems disingenuous.


It's not an edge case at all, that decision making process applies to everyone. Add up all the seconds you spend waiting on your computer over it's life, multiply by how much value you put on your own free time, and divide by the relative performance of the parts you're considering. If the value of the time saved is greater than the difference in price, select the faster part. If it's not, then get the cheaper one.


----------



## doritos93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I'm not concerned about cherry picked CPUs, but mostly about cherry picked benchmarks.
> We all know that BF4 takes some extra advantage of multithreading.
> Not saying it won't deliver with other games. Just waiting for massive third party benchmarks.
> Great hopes, yes. Sold: Not yet.
> 
> Also, it may well be a $700+ CPU, in which case I'd have to see what the 6-core can do.
> 
> .


+1 repped, on top of cherry picking cpus, they're cherry picking benches, there's no guarantee that games will start using more than 4 cores anyway so what's the point? They should've just benched mobas and MMOs, typical AMD


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> +1 repped, on top of cherry picking cpus, they're cherry picking benches, there's no guarantee that games will start using more than 4 cores anyway so what's the point? They should've just benched mobas and MMOs, typical AMD


Take the CanardPC Gaming results, add around 12% and you'll get an idea of the DX11 Gaming IPC of RyZen (Faster than Broadwell 6900K and around par with a 4790K @ 4.4GHz). Why 12%? Clock speed increase confirmed by AMD to be from 3.6 to over 4GHz. So I simply took a 3.8GHz clock speed (which is around the same as a 6900K at 3.7GHz). If you extrapolate to 4.2GHz you end up with RyZen being nearly on par with a 6700K at 4.2GHz (theoretically surpassing the 6700K but we also have to assume that scaling won't be 100% from a clock speed increase).

So yeah... CanardPC has already shown that, despite the "AMD cherry picked benchmarks", RyZen is mighty impressive.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> +1 repped, on top of cherry picking cpus, they're cherry picking benches, there's no guarantee that games will start using more than 4 cores anyway so what's the point? They should've just benched mobas and MMOs, typical AMD


As there is also no guarantee that games are going to only rely on single core performance. The trend has been to take advantage of quads and now higher, I can get near 100% usage out of my 4790k even with a 290x at lower res. Even at 1620p w/ all ultra settings minus post processing my cpu is always at 50-60% usage under DX11 mind you.

Mobas & MMO's are extremely easy to run on any cpu of this class. Yes, games like WoW can still struggle in very cpu heavy areas, but better performance or not Intel really doesn't' shine here either.

But no, let's blast AMD for not showing off their cpu in the worst possible way. "Typical AMD". Some of you are really ridiculous and short sighted, let alone biased.


----------



## Mahigan

Another thing worth adding... Jim Keller led the design team. That alone ought to tell you exactly what RyZen is capable of achieving. Keller never makes a bad design. Never.

Once I found out Keller was behind RyZen, I knew RyZen would be special. I think most older folks who have been around PC tech for such a long time know exactly what I am talking about. Keller is a legend amongst enthusiasts.


----------



## grss1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> You can't just disable it, believe me I would have done this if you could as it's screwing up my system as well with constant download and failed update every.single.time I boot the computer for the day. This has been going on for 2-3 months now, and I had a similar problem for 2-3 months before that and only a fresh install fixed it.


OFF TOPIC:

Can't you just go to services.msc and disable BITS, Cryptographic service and the Windows Update service?

I thought that always worked. :|

ON TOPIC:

Is it just me or is the renaming from Zen to Ryzen seem to be meme inducing?

AMD IS RYZEN! LOLZ


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> +1 repped, on top of cherry picking cpus, they're cherry picking benches, there's no guarantee that games will start using more than 4 cores anyway so what's the point? They should've just benched mobas and MMOs, typical AMD


"cherry picking cpus" ..... The only time you can "cherry pick" cpus to your advantage is when you're talking about OC results, which AMD haven't. This must be one of the dumbest things I've ever read, good job.


----------



## Quantum Reality

My understanding has been it's always possible to raise BCLK even on non-"K" Intel CPUs. Also any good board will offer a way to decouple the PCI-E frequency so you can keep it at the spec frequency, is my understanding also.


----------



## C2H5OH

Pls delete


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Another thing worth adding... Jim Keller led the design team. That alone ought to tell you exactly what RyZen is capable of achieving. Keller never makes a bad design. Never.
> 
> Once I found out Keller was behind RyZen, I knew RyZen would be special. I think most older folks who have been around PC tech for such a long time know exactly what I am talking about. Keller is a legend amongst enthusiasts.


He's a legend amongst legends. Very few people in this industry who are not CEO's get to have their name be so frequently mentioned and known.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Once I found out Keller was behind RyZen, I knew RyZen would be special. I think most older folks who have been around PC tech for such a long time know exactly what I am talking about. Keller is a legend amongst enthusiasts.


He's not quite a CPU God, he couldn't get Project Greyhound off the ground, but he's certainly a CPU demi-God. I just wish he wasn't so mercenary, because if he ran AMD's CPU division for a couple decades Intel would be tossed into the ash heap of history.


----------



## sepiashimmer

No matter how skillful or clever a person is, it can never substitute a great R & D budget. And that is what Intel has, who knows how many people like him in Intel are unknown, because Intel doesn't allow them to come out in the open.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> No matter how skillful or cleaver a person is, it can never substitute a great R & D budget. And that is what Intel has, who knows how many people like him in Intel are unknown, because Intel doesn't allow them to be come out in the open.


bad management can drive a company to crap even at Intel.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> bad management can drive a company to crap even at *Samsung*.


Fixed.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> No matter how skillful or cleaver a person is, it can never substitute a great R & D budget. And that is what Intel has, who knows how many people like him in Intel are unknown, because Intel doesn't allow them to be come out in the open.


On the flip, however, exactly what is the point of diminishing returns on investment? How much can be spent on processor R&D in a directed fashion? Too much of a budget and sure, you're able to go down more rabbit-holes in search of something new and innovative, but in terms of product-directed R&D there has to be some kind of reduced benefit. Plus, Intel spends loads of R&D money on their IoT strategy and all of the other 'emerging markets' that they want share in to diversify their business. AMD has basically thrown the kitchen sink at Zen. Despite their vastly lower operating budget they've directed what they have to the right place and with the right person involved with the project.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> bad management can drive a company to crap even at Intel.


That's common sense, what has it got to do with what I wrote?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> On the flip, however, exactly what is the point of diminishing returns on investment? How much can be spent on processor R&D in a directed fashion? Too much of a budget and sure, you're able to go down more rabbit-holes in search of something new and innovative, but in terms of product-directed R&D there has to be some kind of reduced benefit. Plus, Intel spends loads of R&D money on their IoT strategy and all of the other 'emerging markets' that they want share in to diversify their business. AMD has basically thrown the kitchen sink at Zen. Despite their vastly lower operating budget they've directed what they have to the right place and with the right person involved with the project.


Let's wait and see what Intel will come out with after Ryzen hits the market. It'll tell us where all their R & D has been going. I'm guessing they'll release whatever they've been holding back because of lack of competition from AMD.

And what happens to the GPU division at AMD?


----------



## mohiuddin

here some more hype:
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818429683633127424
Google translate
Quote:


> But they are obviously getting to pass (just) their 6C / 12T in 65W. It is still very respectable.


https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818428797427052545


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> I'm guessing they'll release whatever they've been holding back because of lack of competition from AMD.


Ah, the old hold back theory. That's a red herring if there ever was one. Semiconductor development doesn't work like that and it never will. Any response Intel has to Zen is four years away and if the rumors are true we know what it is.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Ah, the old hold back theory. That's a red herring if there ever was one. Semiconductor development doesn't work like that and it never will. Any response Intel has to Zen is four years away and if the rumors are true we know what it is.


The rumor of Intel purging support for legacy instructions? How would you know how semiconductor development works, do you have latest research developed by cutting edge technology submitted before your desk everyday? Let's wait and see.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Average income in the US is around $55k, $1k is very affordable. Hell, people replace $700 laptops on a yearly basis. Don't confuse your financial situation with the majority.


You mean cellphones and most American's subsidize it with a two year contract like idiots.


----------



## mohiuddin

https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> The rumor of Intel purging support for legacy instructions? How would you know how semiconductor development works, do you have latest research developed by cutting edge technology submitted before your desk everyday? Let's wait and see.


Because developing a new architecture takes time, obviously. Specifically, on 14nm it takes 200 man years and $80 million to develop a new architecture. At 10nm it's going to take 300 man years and $150 million. These are not insignificant resource levels, even for a company as big as Intel.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537


Doesn't mean anything, it's a B-step. That's alpha silicon, basically.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Because developing a new architecture takes time, obviously. Specifically, on 14nm it takes 200 man years and $80 million to develop a new architecture. At 10nm it's going to take 300 man years and $150 million. These are not insignificant resource levels, even for a company as big as Intel.


I think you might be underestimating that somewhat. Intel spends 12 billion a year on research and development, I would hope more than 1~2% of that goes into the new architectures. AMD doesn't spend nearly as much as Intel, but still about a billion a year. Obviously not all of it goes into CPU architecture, but I think 80M is still a low estimate for bringing Zen to market.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537


Quote:


> It's all about yield and I have very few information about it. Pure speculation, but mass availability seems hard before may.


http://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818935820245749760


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> http://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818935820245749760


Does that mean hard as in "hard launch" or hard as in "hard to find" I wonder.


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> http://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818935820245749760


Quote:


> With everything riding on Ryzen's launch, AMD isn't taking chances. Jim Anderson, senior vice president and general manager of AMD's Computing and Graphics business, told PCWorld that Ryzen chips will be available from day one. "We're not going to do a paper launch," he said, referring to a "launch" where customers have to wait weeks or months for the products to actually arrive. "We've done that before. We're not going to mess with it."


http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155129/components-processors/amd-says-its-zen-cpu-architecture-is-expected-to-last-four-years.html


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Yeah in that instance (I mean he says it) the Canard tweet guy is speculating.

But as another poster spotted, the AM4 mobos for Ryzen are launching 'before' March 31st. And as Lipos above points out, it seems there might be proper availability before March 31st for Ryzen itself. But still, wouldn't surprise me if these will be hard to get around March time as I reckon there will be lots of people trying to get hold of them. And when I say 'them', I mean the Ryzen 8C/16 thread flagship. I think only these will be available by those dates, unless someone has more info?


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> I think you might be underestimating that somewhat. Intel spends 12 billion a year on research and development, I would hope more than 1~2% of that goes into the new architectures. AMD doesn't spend nearly as much as Intel, but still about a billion a year. Obviously not all of it goes into CPU architecture, but I think 80M is still a low estimate for bringing Zen to market.


It's not so much the money, but the man years that is the problem. It would take a 200 man engineering team a year to bring a new architecture to market, in other words. Nobody, not even Intel, has 200 semiconductor engineers to devote on a single project. AMD's R&D budget goes into a lot more than CPUs and GPUs, included in that figure is also developing software and research into a whole bunch of semiconductor topics that enable follow on generations of projects.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155129/components-processors/amd-says-its-zen-cpu-architecture-is-expected-to-last-four-years.html


Going to need to stock up on the drinks and popcorn for an OCN sit-in during launch.

Someone bring the tissue, there is going to be tears........maybe even some blood.


----------



## Pesmerrga

Seeing as Be Quiet is already allowing people to order AM4 mounting kits for existing coolers (for FREE!), wouldn't make sense for it to be that far into the future, would it?


----------



## JackCY

Just checking the mounting for their air coolers makes me wanna avoid them :/
Nice that they offer the kits for free though.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Going to need to stock up on the drinks and popcorn for an OCN sit-in during launch.
> 
> Someone bring the tissue, there is going to be tears........maybe even some blood.


Don't drink. The crocodile tears will give you the necessary stamina. You'll need to be up to your full potential to download all that cringe. Things will get ugly. This will turn into an all-out war between trolls and unsuspecting bystanders here. Judge Dredd may need to clean the house when the NDA is down.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Another thing worth adding... Jim Keller led the design team.


Nah, that's Suzanne Plummer. Keller was somewhat involved, but he didn't lead anything.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Doesn't mean anything, it's a B-step. That's alpha silicon, basically.


If it's B2 stepping, that'll most likely be production silicon.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Nice that they offer the kits for free though.


I did mention this.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> If it's B2 stepping, that'll most likely be production silicon.


Doubt it. The 8 core Ryzen chip is on its F4 stepping.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Going to need to stock up on the drinks and popcorn for an OCN sit-in during launch.
> 
> Someone bring the tissue, there is going to be tears........maybe even some *and there will be* blood.


FTFY


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Doubt it. The 8 core Ryzen chip is on its F4 stepping.


There is no F4 stepping. Websites are confusing the OPN string with stepping codes.

Ex is A stepping.
Fx is B stepping.

I trust unreliable sites like WCCF to do this.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I trust unreliable sites like WCCF to do this.


That information comes from Canard PC, which is hardly an unreliable website. It's the French equivalent of PC World or PC Gamer.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> That information comes from Canard PC, which is hardly an unreliable website. It's the French equivalent of PC World or PC Gamer.


You misunderstand them. It's the part number. F3 stepping = B0, F4 stepping = B1.


----------



## ibb27

AMD Set to Launch Ryzen Before March 3rd, Meeting Q1 Target


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> That information comes from Canard PC, which is hardly an unreliable website. It's the French equivalent of PC World or PC Gamer.


No, the original Canard PC article that I reference states the OPN for the 3.15/3.30/3.50 chip as _2D3151A2M88*E4*_, and yet it's an A0 stepping part.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ibb27*
> 
> AMD Set to Launch Ryzen Before March 3rd, Meeting Q1 Target


Just in time for my birthday. Awesome.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> It's the French equivalent of PC World or PC Gamer.


Absolutely not. CanardPC is CanardPC and there is no other equivalence in US/GB.
In France, we're lucky to have them and it's an unique reference.
Do you really know others magazines that give benchmarks and arch details with months advance ? I don't think so...


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Absolutely not. CanardPC is CanardPC and there is no other equivalence in US/GB.
> In France, we're lucky to have them and it's an unique reference.
> Do you really know others magazines that give benchmarks and arch details with months advance ? I don't think so...


It's a good publication, even if the name is weird.


----------



## HZCH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> It's a good publication, even if the name is weird.


I concure, it's the only good hardware (and gaming) magazine you can find in french, and good enough to put in shame most english-speaking websites.

Their community is nice and informed enough they sent mw here when I tried (and did) put an NH-D15S in my Node 304?

And Teraboule seems to be kind of a legend (and his name means Tera "balls" or "bottom", which is nice)


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Absolutely not. CanardPC is CanardPC and there is no other equivalence in US/GB.
> In France, we're lucky to have them and it's an unique reference.
> Do you really know others magazines that give benchmarks and arch details with months advance ? I don't think so...


Those guys are losers weighing down on Mr. Brian Krzanich's shoulders. They are doing a disservice to the community. When Mr. Brian Krzanich presented himself to _the AsRock Overclockers Stand_, it was more effective than these journalists trying to pass Intel hype along with Ryzen news. That was in the 90's, companies - and Mr. Brian Krzanich is a brilliant company figure - now reach out to the community and come clean of 'slander' in any shape or form. You don't get to hide your intent in a 'quantum' world.


----------



## doritos93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HZCH*
> 
> I concure, it's the only good hardware (and gaming) magazine you can find in french, and good enough to put in shame most english-speaking websites.
> 
> Their community is nice and informed enough they sent mw here when I tried (and did) put an NH-D15S in my Node 304?
> 
> And Teraboule seems to be kind of a legend (and his name means Tera "balls" or "bottom", which is nice)


"Boule" means "ball". "Boules" means boobs


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Absolutely not. CanardPC is CanardPC and there is no other equivalence in US/GB.
> In France, we're lucky to have them and it's an unique reference.
> Do you really know others magazines that give benchmarks and arch details with months advance ? I don't think so...


It's not that our writers don't have them, it's that in America breaking an NDA has dire financial consequences.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> It's not that our writers don't have them, it's that in America breaking an NDA has dire financial consequences.


Can't break an NDA if you haven't signed an NDA.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Can't break an NDA if you haven't signed an NDA.


True enough, but industrial espionage is a major felony in the US as well. There's a reason the tech press operates like it does here.


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Can't break an NDA if you haven't signed an NDA.


CanardPC got either Ryzen ES or ES benchmarks, so someone with possessions of those did break the NDA.


----------



## ecogen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> CanardPC got either Ryzen ES or ES benchmarks, so someone with possessions of those did break the NDA.


Obviously but gl finding who. IIRC they didn't disclose the part number they tested, which admittedly would be a pretty dumb thing to do.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> CanardPC got either Ryzen ES or ES benchmarks, so someone with possessions of those did break the NDA.


Yeah, CPC purchased the chip from the _someone_ who broke the NDA.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Obviously but gl finding who. IIRC they didn't disclose the part number they tested, which admittedly would be a pretty dumb thing to do.


CPC disclosed the OPN, if that's what you're referring to.


----------



## mtcn77

I have to give a big shout out to the Sapphire Evangelist Mr. Ed Crisler. Thank you, sir, making the call for the community. Our in-house AMD Specialist Mr. Raja Koduri offers "the same clarification" that he himself has conferred to the users 6 months back:



_Post #22._(I don't care who the boss is quite to the same extent as whomever proffers the terms to the consumer 'the best'). I think this







should be in his name, actually.

PS: drink tea, please. Brackish water is bad for heart. 1 packet tea bag(*no pun, there*) in 2L kettle slow-brew. Basically, you drink nothing but this as an excessive anion & cation clarified water source. Failure to comply, _'will result in a dispossession of responsibility for not being a doctor without borders'. <-You know there, "even for a moment" I did extend 'beyond the border', sort of._








I just don't want to come too late to anyone's aid, _"or would what we do without him: wait up '6 months' for RajaMan to speak up?_ 'No-no'... *He confides in us.*"
- "I am not a monster", _you see._ "I'm just ahead of the curve!"







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I like the baldy Mr. Eric Demers better, hence Qualcomm is on a warpath with AMD, imo. RajaMan doesn't look like he has special powers which I expect from AMD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though, if they put his face on the Wattman background in HD that would be awesome. He should put on a mask or something, special make up. The guy is too much down to earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I think I'm salty because of his savage honesty @


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecogen*
> 
> Can't break an NDA if you haven't signed an NDA.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> True enough, but industrial espionage is a major felony in the US as well. There's a reason the tech press operates like it does here.


Or we outta learn Chinese because they often leak everything and enything even sell the ES chips...

News/reviews etc. in the west are nothing more than paid advertisers.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> True enough, but industrial espionage is a major felony in the US as well. There's a reason the tech press operates like it does here.


It's felony in europe as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Absolutely not. CanardPC is CanardPC and there is no other equivalence in US/GB.
> In France, we're lucky to have them and it's an unique reference.
> Do you really know others magazines that give benchmarks and arch details with months advance ? I don't think so...


They are doing a lot of stuff, which other magazines doesn't bother to do. (And which I do in free time when I need to test difference between architectures and caches.) Kinda wonder why for example anandtech didn't bother to test 6600K at the same frequency as 6700K, and that was just an example of an oversight of better magazine.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Nah, that's Suzanne Plummer. Keller was somewhat involved, but he didn't lead anything.


o rly? That is now the 3rd name I have seen thrown around as the design leader.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> o rly? That is now the 3rd name I have seen thrown around as the design leader.


Keller was brought in to lead all CPU design, Suzanne Plummer led the design Zen team specifically.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> o rly? That is now the 3rd name I have seen thrown around as the design leader.


Yes, really.


----------



## cjwilson

AMD Zen: Ryzen Revisited (Post-CES)


----------



## CoD511

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caenlen*
> 
> samsung quality doesn't exactly mean it will OC better these days... the fact samsung can launch their note 7 phones TWICE even after a recall for blowing up batteries, says to me their legendary quality control has changed, I can understand once... but two recalls... eh, I may go with global foundries on purpose actually.


GlobalFoundries uses Samsung's 14nm processes regardless since alone, they were struggling and a licensing deal was struck. I see Morris Chang honestly leads in the industry here easily. Despite his age, everything is back on track after the stumbles on FinFET and seeing Nvidia using GloFo for the 1050/Ti chips make some wonder how it scales to high power dies.


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> AMD Zen: Ryzen Revisited (Post-CES)


SR9


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> AMD Zen: Ryzen Revisited (Post-CES)


Baseline two has a massive glaring math failure. Other than that, an interesting read. Surprising that the calculations have absolutely massive variance, probably due to PD only having four FPUs. 900-1000p in CB seems way to little for an 8C/16T CPU, freaking 6C/12T Westmere does that, at stock. Two, three and six seem the only somewhat sensible estimates, so I'm going to take my guess at the 8C/16T Zen CPU at 3.5GHz scoring 1400 points in R15.


----------



## lolerk52

Cinebench should definitely be a case where Zen gains more than average. Bulldozer's FPU performance was absolute trash.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Baseline two has a massive glaring math failure.


Elaboration would be nice.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> Cinebench should definitely be a case where Zen gains more than average. Bulldozer's FPU performance was absolute trash.


It should. I mean, it has twice as many FPUs for an octa-core SKU.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> AMD Zen: Ryzen Revisited (Post-CES)


I'm not exactly enthused about the writer's admission that they basically allowed fudging and misperception to drive analysis of Ryzen's capabilities; for example, yes, the fake Xeon benchmark might sort of maybe possibly kiiiiinda reflected Zen's performance?

But that's like using, I dunno, a Trabant with a Lada four-stroke engine dropped in it to approximate the performance characteristics of, say, a Volvo or a Skoda. There's just no way to fairly compare performance characteristics when available benchmarks aren't even of the actual device in question.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I'm not exactly enthused about the writer's admission that they basically allowed fudging and misperception to drive analysis of Ryzen's capabilities; for example, yes, the fake Xeon benchmark might sort of maybe possibly kiiiiinda reflected Zen's performance?


I don't know why people focus so much on that. It was one of the six baselines used, not the only one. And if anything, it provides a better result than the rest of them, whether it's fake or not. Also, the writer acknowledges that the result was _likely_ fake. It wasn't *proven* at the time of writing.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Baseline two has a massive glaring math failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Elaboration would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I just checked: "216 cb × 8 = 864 cb"

Should actually be 1728 cb, so they accidentally the factor of two somewhere.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I just checked: "216 cb × 8 = 864 cb"
> 
> Should actually be 1728 cb, so they accidentally the factor of two somewhere.


If that is due to SMT, I believe the figures already account for that. How much of that IPC is due to SMT? (I am talking multi-thread of course, since this is a multi-threaded benchmark.)

Never mind!









I just re-read your post and went back to the calculations. That is all fixed now.

This is what happens when you write articles in the early hours.

Thank you for that.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Baseline two has a massive glaring math failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Elaboration would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just checked: "216 cb × 8 = 864 cb"
> 
> Should actually be 1728 cb, so they accidentally the factor of two somewhere.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I just checked: "216 cb × 8 = 864 cb"
> 
> Should actually be 1728 cb, so they accidentally the factor of two somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is due to SMT, I believe the figures already account for that. How much of that IPC is due to SMT? (I am talking multi-thread of course, since this is a multi-threaded benchmark.)
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just re-read your post and went back to the calculations. That is all fixed now.
> 
> This is what happens when you write articles in the early hours.
> 
> Thank you for that.
Click to expand...

Had that figured out a couple weeks ago








http://www.overclock.net/t/1619110/cpc-first-unofficial-ryzen-benchmarks/870#post_25757936


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> Had that figured out a couple weeks ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1619110/cpc-first-unofficial-ryzen-benchmarks/870#post_25757936


I did have figures like that originally (1809, based on 1188), but I ultimately decided to go a different route once people started shooting me down continuously.









I did however mention that I was going to redo the predictions [1][2]; this time with more than one baseline. So that's what I did here.









But, I'm happy that we're now somewhat in the same ballpark. Of course, Cinebench is just an FP64 benchmark, and I would expect Zen to do _at least_ twice as good as Piledriver, given twice the number of FP units. So yes, 1728 at 4.10 GHz sounds about right.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> *Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same tim*e and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.


This is me alot of the time, All I do is multi task, they hit me right on target. Finally gonna replace the Thuban.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get why people keep comparing Zen gaming performence to the 6900 when clearly anyone who game is going to buy the i5 or i7... if you think zen at 400 to 500$ is going to sell well because it's beating the 1100$ intel CPU, you are wrong. The vast majority of people are actually buying cups are buying i5s, they don't need 8c for video rendering and intel CPUs are faster and cheaper in a gaming scenario and day to day and already has an established brand.
> 
> *Sure you can find the scenario where you stream, encode and games all at the same tim*e and AMD will be beating intel but the average consumer does not spend more then 300$ on their CPU and they don't stream, encode...! More cores is a futile approach.
> 
> 
> 
> This is me alot of the time, All I do is multi task, they hit me right on target. Finally gonna replace the Thuban.
Click to expand...

I might finally get around to doing some thuban benches lol . I managed to to snag a 1075T from a batch # that almost assures it to be god-like in it's overclocking abilities







. I'll be presenting offerings to the silicon gods all throughout the shipping process. wish me luck!


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> I might finally get around to doing some thuban benches lol . I managed to to snag a 1075T from a batch # that almost assures it to be god-like in it's overclocking abilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'll be presenting offerings to the silicon gods all throughout the shipping process. wish me luck!


Make sure to PM me a link, looking forward to it!


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> I might finally get around to doing some thuban benches lol . I managed to to snag a 1075T from a batch # that almost assures it to be god-like in it's overclocking abilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'll be presenting offerings to the silicon gods all throughout the shipping process. wish me luck!
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure to PM me a link, looking forward to it!
Click to expand...

Will do.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I did have figures like that originally (1809, based on 1188), but I ultimately decided to go a different route once people started shooting me down continuously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did however mention that I was going to redo the predictions [1][2]; this time with more than one baseline. So that's what I did here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, I'm happy that we're now somewhat in the same ballpark. Of course, Cinebench is just an FP64 benchmark, and I would expect Zen to do _at least_ twice as good as Piledriver, given twice the number of FP units. So yes, 1728 at 4.10 GHz sounds about right.


So on your site you just multiplied known scores by the IPC improvement? We don't have a ture 8 core other than the Intel i7-6900k and AMD FX 8000 series (due to modules rather than both integer and FP cores it could be 4 cores depending on application)

AFAIK SMT only has 30-40% effectiveness of a core although in Cinebench it seems it is a direct scaling (i.e. 6 core/12 thread vs 4 core /8 thread) due to a direct core relationship.

For example:
Skylake i5 unlocked ~ 700cb , Skylake i7 unlocked 4c/8t ~ 1000cb
Haswell i5 unlocked ~ 600 cb, Haswell i7 unlocked ~ 900 cb

A 4GHz 8 core 16 thread Zen CPU with a stock cb score of 1000 would be horrific , Kaby Lake i7 4c/8t on your chart is ~1000. They'd need to sell it about $300-400 for the top tier binned part. It needs to be at least match a stock 6 core 12 thread Intel CPU newer than i7-3930K to not be a flop (that's about 1200 cb score).

In order for it to be a "buy it now" it would need to be at least between a 6c/12t and Intel 8c/16t. So therefore your baseline 1,4,and 5 are failures for AMD.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> This is me alot of the time, All I do is multi task, they hit me right on target. Finally gonna replace the Thuban.


Me too. I'd love one of those hexa-core chips in my system.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> So on your site you just multiplied known scores by the IPC improvement? We don't have a ture 8 core other than the Intel i7-6900k and AMD FX 8000 series (due to modules rather than both integer and FP cores it could be 4 cores depending on application)
> 
> AFAIK SMT only has 30-40% effectiveness of a core although in Cinebench it seems it is a direct scaling (i.e. 6 core/12 thread vs 4 core /8 thread) due to a direct core relationship.
> 
> For example:
> Skylake i5 unlocked ~ 700cb , Skylake i7 unlocked 4c/8t ~ 1000cb
> Haswell i5 unlocked ~ 600 cb, Haswell i7 unlocked ~ 900 cb
> 
> A 4GHz 8 core 16 thread Zen CPU with a stock cb score of 1000 would be horrific , Kaby Lake i7 4c/8t on your chart is ~1000. They'd need to sell it about $300-400 for the top tier binned part. It needs to be at least match a stock 6 core 12 thread Intel CPU newer than i7-3930K to not be a flop (that's about 1200 cb score).
> 
> In order for it to be a "buy it now" it would need to be at least between a 6c/12t and Intel 8c/16t. So therefore your baseline 1,4,and 5 are failures for AMD.


From what we've seen thus far, and with Zen's much improved FP64 performance over Piledriver, I'd say baseline #2 is the most realistic.

But, those IPC figures I achieved are the result of almost a week's research. This isn't something I did in 20 minutes. I started writing the article on Jan 13 and it was finalized on Jan 19.


----------



## iLeakStuff

From Chiphell (posted 2 days ago)
Quote:


> 1. The NDA is released at Techday at the end of February,( and the release is late at the end of March?)
> 2. It takes time because you have to test the motherboard BIOS.
> 3. First released from 8C / 16T, 4C 8T released in April
> 4. Price is not cheaper than I thought.
> 5. Game performance is real.


Quote:


> CPU has long been ready, that is, the motherboard has been bug (not before the usb bug)


----------



## f1LL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> From Chiphell (posted 2 days ago)


So going by the further posts on Chiphell the 8/16 sku will be $600-$750 (4000-5000Yuan)?

*EDIT: Forget that. It's just a guess by the person who posted what iLeak quoted.*


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f1LL*
> 
> So going by the further posts on Chiphell the 8/16 sku will be $600-$750 (4000-5000Yuan)?
> 
> *EDIT: Forget that. It's just a guess by the person who posted what iLeak quoted.*


Yeah doesnt seem like they know the exact price. Only that the CPUs will cost more than expected.

Im glad AMD is doing this. You know AMD have been running a charity for cheapskates over many years when their highest end 8-core cost $200 while Intel have been in the $1000+ price range for these.
Well I think Intel have been abusing their position though and been overpricing their CPUs because of lack of competition.
When Ryzen launches I expect AMD to go towards the $500 area for their 8-cores and Intel will have to go down in price. Healthy competition and good for customers.

No longer will AMD be known for the brand for cheapskates. I personally think that this dumping of price have damaged their reputation greatly. If Average Joe is looking for a new CPU and he spots an AMD CPU for $200 and a Intel CPU for say $600-1000+ he may begin to question why the AMD CPU cost so little. Maybe its crap?


----------



## Quantum Reality

There's a difference between being cheaper because the alternative can perform ably, and being cheaper because the alternative is unable to meet the performance standard set by the larger player.

Athlon X2 and Phenom are examples of the former (the Phenom II X4 965BE was a very able competitor to the Core 2 Q6*00 and Q9*00 generation of CPUs), while Bulldozer/successors and the A* APU series are examples of the latter.

I'm hoping Ryzen will be another example of the former.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Since Ryzen is looking to be close in performance to Skylake, I expect AMD to price their CPUs accordingly.
For their sake I sincerely hope they do.

Which is perhaps why that Chiphell guy said more expensive than expected...

The 4-core chips launching in April according to that guy will probably be the best bang for the buck. 8-core chips can be used for so many applications that professional users with money will be interested


----------



## eTheBlack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> From Chiphell (posted 2 days ago)


I hope this isnt true. Ryzen release should be at end of February. If not I will just go with 7700K


----------



## TokenBC

For some reason that feels completely fake to me.

Probably because it goes against what AMD said and other stuff.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Me too. I'd love one of those hexa-core chips in my system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what we've seen thus far, and with Zen's much improved FP64 performance over Piledriver, I'd say baseline #2 is the most realistic.
> 
> But, those IPC figures I achieved are the result of almost a week's research. This isn't something I did in 20 minutes. I started writing the article on Jan 13 and it was finalized on Jan 19.


I didn't mean to offend you. I'm just pointing out that SMT does not scale the same as cores.

I'm also pretty sure the Cinebench leak was a fake given that it was taken down on the forum it originated from due to it being an Intel chip.

That said , the estimation from Baseline 2 is likely but optimistic for workloads that AMD has historically not been terrible (i.e. for multithread a Piledriver FX-8350 vs a Sandy Bridge i5/i7 is within 20% ; FX-8370 is within 10% of i7-3770K in multithread but over 20% slower in single thread cinebench and application benches such as sunspider; FX-8350 is actually faster than Phenom II X6 in this workload)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *http://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-revisited/*
> Baseline 2: AMD FX-8350 - Canard PC's 35% Thread Improvement (1 × Piledriver Module vs. 1 × Zen Core)


It's plausible since AMD Ryzen was demoed against the i7-6900k. The Cinebench demo was a 3.4 GHz Ryzen up against Intel's 3.5 GHz i7-6900K.

The CanardPC's results for gaming (i.e. largely single threaded up to 4 cores) suggest that a similarly clocked Ryzen CPU would perform quicker than the i5-6600k or i7-6800k. This is respectable given that a FX-8370 with 1Ghz more clocks is slower than a i5-6400 with 3.3Ghz boost.

Compare this 35% improvement estimation with AMD's own estimate of 40% IPC improvement and I believe that (CanardPC's) is the most accurate estimate.

====
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yeah doesn't seem like they know the exact price. Only that the CPUs will cost more than expected.
> 
> I'm glad AMD is doing this. You know AMD have been running a charity for cheapskates over many years when their highest end 8-core cost $200 while Intel have been in the $1000+ price range for these.
> Well I think Intel have been abusing their position though and been overpricing their CPUs because of lack of competition.
> When Ryzen launches I expect AMD to go towards the $500 area for their 8-cores and Intel will have to go down in price. Healthy competition and good for customers.
> 
> No longer will AMD be known for the brand for cheapskates. I personally think that this dumping of price have damaged their reputation greatly. If Average Joe is looking for a new CPU and he spots an AMD CPU for $200 and a Intel CPU for say $600-1000+ he may begin to question why the AMD CPU cost so little. Maybe its crap?


AMD Bulldozer had 8 "cores" but only 4 modules so when the floating point cores are the ones doing the work they are no better than quad cores ; each pair of integer cores is only fed by one decoder. That's another reason why it would be priced so low.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Since Ryzen is looking to be close in performance to Skylake, I expect AMD to price their CPUs accordingly.
> For their sake I sincerely hope they do.
> 
> Which is perhaps why that Chiphell guy said more expensive than expected...
> 
> The 4-core chips launching in April according to that guy will probably be the best bang for the buck. 8-core chips can be used for so many applications that professional users with money will be interested


That will surely make gain AMD nice marketshare right?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f1LL*
> 
> So going by the further posts on Chiphell the 8/16 sku will be $600-$750 (4000-5000Yuan)?
> 
> *EDIT: Forget that. It's just a guess by the person who posted what iLeak quoted.*


If those figures hold even the smallest amount of validity, then I guess my estimations of $700 for the top-of-the-line model were pretty good. The one that everyone would be going for (still 8C/16T), would be $550.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> I didn't mean to offend you. I'm just pointing out that SMT does not scale the same as cores.
> 
> I'm also pretty sure the Cinebench leak was a fake given that it was taken down on the forum it originated from due to it being an Intel chip.
> 
> That said , the estimation from Baseline 2 is likely but optimistic for workloads that AMD has historically not been terrible (i.e. for multithread a Piledriver FX-8350 vs a Sandy Bridge i5/i7 is within 20% ; FX-8370 is within 10% of i7-3770K in multithread but over 20% slower in single thread cinebench and application benches such as sunspider; FX-8350 is actually faster than Phenom II X6 in this workload)
> It's plausible since AMD Ryzen was demoed against the i7-6900k. The Cinebench demo was a 3.4 GHz Ryzen up against Intel's 3.5 GHz i7-6900K.
> 
> The CanardPC's results for gaming (i.e. largely single threaded up to 4 cores) suggest that a similarly clocked Ryzen CPU would perform quicker than the i5-6600k or i7-6800k. This is respectable given that a FX-8370 with 1Ghz more clocks is slower than a i5-6400 with 3.3Ghz boost.


Indeed, but my IPC calculations were based entirely on Cinebench single-thread scores, as well as UserBenchmark single-core integer and floating-point figures. Cinebench is a double-precision floating-point benchmark, so Zen is expected to match Intel here, and is why I chose it, since not only does AMD use it in marketing slides, but it also makes it easier to compare to Intel where it should fit in, versus Piledriver, Excavator, Ivy Bridge, Haswell and Broadwell. It's for this reason that I believe the IPC table is accurate.

Also, about that Xeon result; if it's fake, it's fake. But it makes a good baseline, regardless. After all, it's giving the second best scores of all the baselines used (completely ignoring #3). But, what I did want to point out from that is that my original article didn't take into account that turbo was disabled with A0 stepping chips, and therefore that Xeon score was taken as a 3.30 GHz baseline. In actual fact, it should be at 3.15 GHz, which is now corrected in the second article.

And lastly, although this serves absolutely no purpose, I just thought that it was ironic that totaling all of the baseline results up for a Ryzen chip at 3.15 GHz and dividing by 6, we get 1103 cb. At 3.30 GHz, we get 1137 cb, and at 3.50 GHz, we get 1225 cb. Very close to the Xeon score, and very close to my original baseline from the previous article, the FX-8350 @ 7.65 GHz (1196 cb).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Compare this 35% improvement estimation with AMD's own estimate of 40% IPC improvement and I believe that (CanardPC's) is the most accurate estimate.


That 40% is now 55% with stepping B1.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> That will surely make gain AMD nice marketshare right?


I think AMD will gain a lot of marketshare back. After all, they recieved a present from Intel in terms of Kaby Lake.
The buzz is that it offer almost nothing over Skylake. Which is true.
I think a lot are fed up with Intels semi rebranding and lackluster refreshes so this is a golden opportunity for AMD to make some noise


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The buzz is that it offer almost nothing over Skylake. Which is true.


_Almost_ nothing?









Anyone with an i7-6700K at 4.40 GHz already has a Kaby Lake chip.







It should have been called Skylake Refresh.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> _Almost_ nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an i7-6700K at 4.40 GHz already has a Kaby Lake chip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should have been called Skylake Refresh.


Yep a refresh. :








But clever Intel knows how to market and sell their chips even though progress have been crap over the years.

Even Coffee Lake will be lackluster in 2018 when it launches. Its about more cores on the same 14nm process as Kaby Lake. Followed by Cannon Lake low power CPUs launching the same year. And perhaps enthusiast Cannon Lake in 2019.
Who knows how that will perform but the message here is that it will be a long wait for enthusiasts to get a new architecture and even when we reach 2019 nobody knows if its another +5% IPC crap move.

Sad times for CPUs unless AMD come with something revolutionary


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yep a refresh. :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But clever Intel knows how to market and sell their chips even though progress have been crap over the years.
> 
> Even Coffee Lake will be lackluster in 2018 when it launches. Its about more cores on the same 14nm process as Kaby Lake. Followed by Cannon Lake low power CPUs launching the same year. And perhaps enthusiast Cannon Lake in 2019.
> Who knows how that will perform but the message here is that it will be a long wait for enthusiasts to get a new architecture and even when we reach 2019 nobody knows if its another +5% IPC crap move.
> 
> Sad times for CPUs unless AMD come with something revolutionary


How is it different than when *K6-*1,2,3 gave us bang-for-buck; *Athlon XP* when Intel was hawking P4s and Netburst, *Athlon 64* launched when CPUs were getting boring with the "more GHz" , *Phenom I* changing the market when Intel was pairing two dual cores together and calling it a quad core (albeit with TLB bug fixed by Phenom II), or *Phenom II* bringing prices down?

It irks me that Intel gets to write off Netburst but AMD doesn't get to write off Bulldozer as a failure for some reason.

It will be up to AMD to change the market _again_.


----------



## renx

Not only most Kaby Lakes 7700k are reaching 5Ghz, but the cpu's IMC is working quite well. It's taking an even more tangible benefit from the use of faster ram.
It doesn't matter that upgrades from skylake and haswell are not worth. Performance is great, and Ryzen has to beat this for $350 or less, or most enthusiast gamers will still pick intel, even if they get only 5-10% more frames.

.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Not only most Kaby Lakes 7700k are reaching 5Ghz, but the cpu's IMC is working quite well. It's taking an even more tangible benefit from the use of faster ram.
> It doesn't matter that upgrades from skylake and haswell are not worth. Performance is great, and Ryzen has to beat this for $350 or less, or most enthusiast gamers will still pick intel, even if they get only 5-10% more frames.


Faster memory bringing large performance really smells of caches being too large or programs being poorly written. The whole idea is that the most often used data is kept as close to the CPU as possible, if a program just dumps the caches full of whatever you start seeing those performance "improvements". The alternative is a program having such a large dataset to work with that it spills into system memory, but few games really warrant having commonly accessed data there.

With the L3 on Zen being an exclusive victim cache an 4C/8T CCX has far more cache than something like the 7700k (2MB L2+8MB L3 vs 1MB L2+7MB L3 (as L2 is duplicated)) memory performance should be less of an issue.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Not only most Kaby Lakes 7700k are reaching 5Ghz, but the cpu's IMC is working quite well. It's taking an even more tangible benefit from the use of faster ram.
> It doesn't matter that upgrades from skylake and haswell are not worth. Performance is great, and Ryzen has to beat this for $350 or less, or most enthusiast gamers will still pick intel, even if they get only 5-10% more frames.
> 
> .


You must be joking, according to HardOCP less then 30% od 7700K is able to reach 5Ghz stable on air, they gathered data from a lot of reviews and also four of their own tested cpus (only 1 out of 4 did 5Ghz).
I'm very much inclined to believe them.
Again a joke, right, you mean that 10% higher CPU clock will get you 10-15% more FPS? In what resolution, 640x480? Or maybe in 3x1080 SLI, and even that would be doubtful.
It would be quite enough for Ryzen 4c/8t to reach 4.5Ghz for half the Intel price







to satisfy most of the gamers out there.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> You must be joking, according to HardOCP less then 30% od 7700K is able to reach 5Ghz stable on air, they gathered data from a lot of reviews and also four of their own tested cpus (only 1 out of 4 did 5Ghz).
> I'm very much inclined to believe them.
> Again a joke, right, you mean that 10% higher CPU clock will get you 10-15% more FPS? In what resolution, 640x480? Or maybe in 3x1080 SLI, and even that would be doubtful.
> It would be quite enough for Ryzen 4c/8t to reach 4.5Ghz for half the Intel price
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to satisfy most of the gamers out there.


What are you talking about? I've never said that.
I've just stated that IF Ryzen's performs 10% below Kaby Lake on games, then gaming enthusiasts will still purchase intel. I know I would.
Many people tend to see Ryzen as a new upcoming messiah, who will save us from big brother. I yet have to see if it delivers, and I'm 50-50 at this point.

As for the 5Ghz I'd rather trust Silicon Lottery. They sell cpus and it would be better for them to say that most 7700's won't reach 5Ghz. They say 56% will reach 5Ghz no problem.
But it doesn't even matter. I give you 100 or 200Mhz and it's exactly the same thought.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> What are you talking about? I've never said that.
> I've just stated that IF Ryzen's performs 10% below Kaby Lake on games, then gaming enthusiasts will still purchase intel. I know I would.
> Many people tend to see Ryzen as a new upcoming messiah, who will save us from big brother. I yet have to see if it delivers, and I'm 50-50 at this point.
> 
> As for the 5Ghz I'd rather trust Silicon Lottery. They sell cpus and it would be better for them to say that most 7700's won't reach 5Ghz. They say 56% will reach 5Ghz no problem.
> But it doesn't even matter. I give you 100 or 200Mhz and it's exactly the same thought.


Silicon Lottery bins them. They don't suggest that they will each 5GHz on stock voltage or with a small voltage bump. SIlicon Lottery specifies its i7-7700k as 1.376V CPU VCORE or less.

However 5GHz does seem to be the average OC on hwbot as opposed to 4.6-4.7GHz on the i7-6700k
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7700k/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6700k/


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> What are you talking about? I've never said that.
> I've just stated that IF Ryzen's performs 10% below Kaby Lake on games, then gaming enthusiasts will still purchase intel. I know I would.
> Many people tend to see Ryzen as a new upcoming messiah, who will save us from big brother. I yet have to see if it delivers, and I'm 50-50 at this point.


You mean at the same price point right? As in comparing 7700k with whatever AMD sets at $350? AMD should be smart enough to use, at a minimum, 6core/12thread at this price point.

I intend to either upgrade to kaby or ryzen this year. But I'm tempted to go ryzen even if its 5-10% slower for gaming with 6core/12thread at $350 (although I'm hoping for 8/16). 6/12 should be faster for other purposes and hopefully game developers will get better at utilizing more cores.

But the real reason I'm tempted to go ryzen even at 5-10% slower is because I'm willing to spend money for a cause. That is I'm supporting AMD to send a message to Intel so that Intel will stop being stagnant. I'm at the point in my life where I can spend a little more to send a message.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> You mean at the same price point right? As in comparing 7700k with whatever AMD sets at $350? AMD should be smart enough to use, at a minimum, 6core/12thread at this price point.
> 
> I intend to either upgrade to kaby or ryzen this year. But I'm tempted to go ryzen even if its 5-10% slower for gaming with 6core/12thread at $350 (although I'm hoping for 8/16). 6/12 should be faster for other purposes and hopefully game developers will get better at utilizing more cores.
> 
> But the real reason I'm tempted to go ryzen even at 5-10% slower is because I'm willing to spend money for a cause. That is I'm supporting AMD to send a message to Intel so that Intel will stop being stagnant. I'm at the point in my life where I can spend a little more to send a message.


Exactly. And fair enough.


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> What are you talking about? I've never said that.
> I've just stated that IF Ryzen's performs 10% below Kaby Lake on games, then gaming enthusiasts will still purchase intel. I know I would.
> Many people tend to see Ryzen as a new upcoming messiah, who will save us from big brother. I yet have to see if it delivers, and I'm 50-50 at this point.
> 
> As for the 5Ghz I'd rather trust Silicon Lottery. They sell cpus and it would be better for them to say that most 7700's won't reach 5Ghz. They say 56% will reach 5Ghz no problem.
> But it doesn't even matter. I give you 100 or 200Mhz and it's exactly the same thought.


Ech, it seems I'm too tired to read straight







Sorry.
Beside based on HWBot submitted results Kaby really is a worthy upgrade in terms of OC so my point is invalid anyway as Ryzen would have to do a much better job to catch up.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mat9v*
> 
> Ech, it seems I'm too tired to read straight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.
> Beside based on HWBot submitted results *Kaby really is a worthy upgrade in terms of OC* so my point is invalid anyway as Ryzen would have to do a much better job to catch up.


I don't agree at all, if you're on Haswell, Broadwell or Skylake there is no sense in upgrading to Kaby Lake and it's the opposite of 'worthy' it's a disgrace of a 'new generation' if we're honest. 0% IPC improvement over the last gen and those 100/200Mhz extra OC increases the power usage, it's not even more efficient.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yep a refresh. :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But clever Intel knows how to market and sell their chips even though progress have been crap over the years.
> 
> Even Coffee Lake will be lackluster in 2018 when it launches. Its about more cores on the same 14nm process as Kaby Lake. Followed by Cannon Lake low power CPUs launching the same year. And perhaps enthusiast Cannon Lake in 2019.
> Who knows how that will perform but the message here is that it will be a long wait for enthusiasts to get a new architecture and even when we reach 2019 nobody knows if its another +5% IPC crap move.
> 
> Sad times for CPUs unless AMD come with something revolutionary


Word is that Ice Lake will bring the first major architectural improvements we've had since Sandy Bridge, but as for whether it'll be like Nehalem to Sandy Bridge (+ 17%), I don't know. I mean, the only reason Sandy Bridge was such an improvement is because Nehalem was a very close relative to Penryn, with SMT re-enabled and a few minor changes. Cannonlake on the other hand will be a close relative of what we have now, so it's inevitable that the IPC increase will likely be lackluster. Ice Lake might give us PCIe 4.0, though.

Coffee Lake is essentially going to be Kaby Lake's 6C/12T on the mainstream mobile platform. Speaking of that, we're also going to see Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X sometime throughout the second quarter if that roadmap is to be believed, and while Skylake-X will bring typical enthusiast parts, Kaby Lake-X will actually be bringing quad-core iGPU-less parts to the platform, at higher TDPs. It'll be an interesting year; it certainly isn't what Intel has typically been doing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> It irks me that Intel gets to write off Netburst but AMD doesn't get to write off Bulldozer as a failure for some reason.
> 
> It will be up to AMD to change the market _again_.


I couldn't agree more. Compared to NetBurst, Bulldozer wasn't really that much of a failure. It was simply marketed in the wrong segments. I mean, sure, it had performance penalties compared to Phenom II, but it would have never competed with said Phenom II had marketing followed the engineers' lead.

NetBurst on the other hand... I recall the Athlon exceeding the Pentium Extreme Edition in video games by considerable amounts; a 2.00 GHz Athlon could keep up with a 3.47 GHz Pentium, giving identical or slightly better frame rates, while a 2.20 GHz chip would outperform it. That is the definition of _PoS_. Unfortunately, we were an unintelligent bunch back then, and owned a Dell Dimension 4500 with a Willamette @ 2.00 GHz and 128 MB RAM. That was the worst machine we've ever had. Including the monitor, keyboard and mouse, we paid the equivalent of $2,500 USD for it back in 2001. My Pentium III-M laptop was faster.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> I intend to either upgrade to kaby or ryzen this year. But I'm tempted to go ryzen even if its 5-10% slower for gaming with 6core/12thread at $350 (although I'm hoping for 8/16). 6/12 should be faster for other purposes and hopefully game developers will get better at utilizing more cores.


You know, with XFR looking to perform how it appears to, I don't really see the hexa-core or octa-core parts being that much slower than the quad-core parts in single-thread mode. 4.00 GHz might be something we see across the board, for the top-end model of each tier. Quad-cores might even go higher; say 4.30 GHz?

XFR is a much more solid and diverse technology than Turbo Boost Max 3.0.


----------



## mr soft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yeah doesnt seem like they know the exact price. Only that the CPUs will cost more than expected.
> 
> Im glad AMD is doing this. You know AMD have been running a charity for cheapskates over many years when their highest end 8-core cost $200 while Intel have been in the $1000+ price range for these.
> Well I think Intel have been abusing their position though and been overpricing their CPUs because of lack of competition.
> When Ryzen launches I expect AMD to go towards the $500 area for their 8-cores and Intel will have to go down in price. Healthy competition and good for customers.
> 
> No longer will AMD be known for the brand for cheapskates. I personally think that this dumping of price have damaged their reputation greatly. If Average Joe is looking for a new CPU and he spots an AMD CPU for $200 and a Intel CPU for say $600-1000+ he may begin to question why the AMD CPU cost so little. Maybe its crap?


I know right, anyone not buying Intel are just plain tight.


----------



## soth7676

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yeah doesnt seem like they know the exact price. Only that the CPUs will cost more than expected.
> 
> Im glad AMD is doing this. You know AMD have been running a charity for cheapskates over many years when their highest end 8-core cost $200 while Intel have been in the $1000+ price range for these.
> Well I think Intel have been abusing their position though and been overpricing their CPUs because of lack of competition.
> When Ryzen launches I expect AMD to go towards the $500 area for their 8-cores and Intel will have to go down in price. Healthy competition and good for customers.
> 
> No longer will AMD be known for the brand for cheapskates. I personally think that this dumping of price have damaged their reputation greatly. If Average Joe is looking for a new CPU and he spots an AMD CPU for $200 and a Intel CPU for say $600-1000+ he may begin to question why the AMD CPU cost so little. Maybe its crap?


Personally AMD was the forefront innovator in the CPU industry and at one point was charging premium price or a single FX CPU....between AMD's mistakes(and they have made some) and intel's anti competitive practices THAT is how AMD ended up in this situation. Not cause they WANTED to be "the brand of cheapskates", but if the charged the same price as intel cpus without having the performance, than their reputation would be even more sullied than it is today...

Now do I expect AMD to charge 1k for a 8core 16 thread cpu???...no...even with performance parity and the intel mindshare most seem to have, it will take a couple of years before AMD can go toe to toe price wise with intel, and that is even with intel dropping prices to keep it competitvie


----------



## pony-tail

With all the current talk about pricing and such , I can not help but feel that is a bit premature .
I suspect that although Ryzen will perform well that it's performance , will fall short of what many are expecting .
Pricing may actually be quite unstable until it settles into it's niche in the market .
If lots of people jump on then the price will go high - if it is slower to sell the price will creep down .
The suppliers will charge as much as they can get away with , same as they do on video cards .
This new platform could be out for a couple of months before prices stabilize , even Intel's reaction ( if any ) has yet to be seen .
We will see in the next month or two .


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> With all the current talk about pricing and such , I can not help but feel that is a bit premature.


Nothing wrong with some respectful guessing.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> I suspect that although Ryzen will perform well that it's performance , will fall short of what many are expecting .


Yup, after seeing Kaby Lake-X on the roadmap, I'm feeling less confident in Ryzen's quad-core parts. It seems inevitable that Intel has the upper hand there.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> Pricing may actually be quite unstable until it settles into it's niche in the market .
> If lots of people jump on then the price will go high - if it is slower to sell the price will creep down .
> The suppliers will charge as much as they can get away with , same as they do on video cards .
> This new platform could be out for a couple of months before prices stabilize , even Intel's reaction ( if any ) has yet to be seen .
> We will see in the next month or two .


This is predictable. I mean, just look how Polaris was when it launched. Pricing was (and still is in some nations) all over the place.

Also, while I have no information on yields, it seems to me that it should be reasonable. Only 8-core and 4-core parts are launching initially, and there might be a dedicated quad-core die. This tells me that there are three possible scenarios;


There will be higher than average 8-core yields.
AMD plans on launching more than a handful of 8-core SKUs.
8-core yields are not as bad as anticipated, and so defective chips are being stockpiled for a later release of 4-core and 6-core SKUs, made with these defective 8-core dies (with a different stepping to differentiate them from the real 4-core dies).


----------



## mat9v

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> I don't agree at all, if you're on Haswell, Broadwell or Skylake there is no sense in upgrading to Kaby Lake and it's the opposite of 'worthy' it's a disgrace of a 'new generation' if we're honest. 0% IPC improvement over the last gen and those 100/200Mhz extra OC increases the power usage, it's not even more efficient.


You know, you should have looked at those links before posting. Typical overclocking for i7-6700k is 4600Mhz on air and for i7-7700 it is 5000Mhz on air - so it is a worthy upgrade in terms of OC capability.
Of course IPC wise it is flat and nowhere have I stated that it is for users of 6700k, but if you were to have a low clocking 6700k and had an occasion to sell it for good price then 7700k would be a good buy.
It all depends on what is your starting point, I have a 6 core sandy bridge based xeon that is clocking at 4.3Ghz - so upgrade is not for me yet, but it is a edge case, 25-40% IPC (depends on task) plus 10% core speed and it is almost worth an upgrade.


----------



## cjwilson

AMD Zen: Core Complexes and Configurations (with a Q&A)


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



I don't plan on writing any more.


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> AMD Zen: Core Complexes and Configurations (with a Q&A)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't plan on writing any more.


The guy is suggesting fusing off two cores in a complex, which I don't see happening...

A core complex is 4-core Ryzen and a two core complex is an 8 core Ryzen. AMD will probably play with HT to address other markets.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> AMD Zen: Core Complexes and Configurations (with a Q&A)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't plan on writing any more.


Unlike the previous ones this seems to have a lot of misses. First off, AMD stated that they are launching a full stack of CPUs, so not just the eight core models. And I still don't see a quad coming with higher clocks than the octa. Since the original Phenom AMD has not sacrificed more than 200MHz in clocks for having higher core counts.

Switching off two cores per CCX is a bad idea as the two core CCXs will need to transfer quite a bit of data to each other. Even if the interconnect is good having all four cores would be far better for power consumption, and having 4MB of L3 per core is still so excessive that it doesn't help much outside of very specific workloads, for which you wouldn't be running a quad for regardless.

The 8C/8T CPU is probably the weirdest design possible. SMT itself should take such little area that disabling it alone is only useful for segmentation, and having an 8C/8T CPU with a 6C/12T is just bad when the former will be rarer, barely any faster, and also have 10-15% worse perf/W. It's just going to be more difficult to make while also essentially being worse than the alternative all around. 6C/6T is more sensible as it has an actual performance advantage against 4C/8T, but IMO SMT defects are still rare enough to make any CPU with it defective straight into 4C/4T, along with other large core and cache defects.

Disabling SMT on a Raven Ridge dual-core also seems ridiculous, the core complex itself is going to be maybe 45mm^2 max, and even a 2C/4T CPU is fairly weak. Against the new Pentiums those would have to be clocked higher or priced in the $50 range which is really not much even for small defective APU. With Raven Ridge the new "Athlon" ~3GHz quads might well make it to the $90-100 range.


----------



## breenemeister

I want reverse hyper-threading/reverse SMT. Could you imagine the performance you could get in single threaded stuff without really sacrificing much when you start with an 8 core chip? I'm dreaming though.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *breenemeister*
> 
> I want reverse hyper-threading/reverse SMT. Could you imagine the performance you could get in single threaded stuff without really sacrificing much when you start with an 8 core chip? I'm dreaming though.


With as much advancements as the tech world has made, I'm surprised that they haven't figured out a way to spread single threaded tasks across multiple cores/threads. When I got my first dual core I was surprised to find that this wasn't the case.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *breenemeister*
> 
> I want reverse hyper-threading/reverse SMT. Could you imagine the performance you could get in single threaded stuff without really sacrificing much when you start with an 8 core chip? I'm dreaming though.


Do you mean combining the 8 threads so that the programs see one really powerful thread? I thought that's what multi-threaded software did, I have zero understanding of programming though.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Unlike the previous ones this seems to have a lot of misses. First off, AMD stated that they are launching a full stack of CPUs, so not just the eight core models. And I still don't see a quad coming with higher clocks than the octa. Since the original Phenom AMD has not sacrificed more than 200MHz in clocks for having higher core counts.


It's a perfectly valid reason that quad-core parts will feature identical clock speeds to the octa-core parts. In fact, I have brought that up before. But if that is the case, it means AMD is relying heavily on high core counts yet again. We don't need 8C/16T against 4C/8T, because that spells disaster for the single-thread performance. We need 4C/8T vs. 4C/8T, or, if you like, 4C/8T vs. 4C/4T. Give someone a reason to move from their Core i5 or Core i7. If you can get an i7 for the cost of an i5 (which is a perfectly possible scenario), I'm sure they will jump ship. Not to mention that there is 8C/16T support on the same socket, which Intel doesn't offer.

I'm sorry, but AMD has invested heavily in the gaming market, and that is actually the segment that has given them their highest profits. The company has also stated that it wants to focus on gaming, so it would make perfect sense for a quad-core to be gunning Intel for the single-thread performance crown. I don't care whether it's meeting Skylake or not, but it seems evident to me that for a market that AMD cares so much about, it will have to push clock speeds higher for lower core counts.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Switching off two cores per CCX is a bad idea as the two core CCXs will need to transfer quite a bit of data to each other. Even if the interconnect is good having all four cores would be far better for power consumption, and having 4MB of L3 per core is still so excessive that it doesn't help much outside of very specific workloads, for which you wouldn't be running a quad for regardless.


In the back of my head, I'm not really expecting any dual-core designs. I even alluded to this in a previous article. But you seem to be misinterpreting the article. It's not predicting anything, it's giving possible configurations. They are possibilities, but they are not predictions.

If you want my predictions, here they are (prices are for the slowest models):


4C/4T _SR3_ @ $125
4C/8T _SR3_ @ $200
6C/6T _SR5_ @ $225
6C/12T _SR5_ @ $275
8C/8T _SR7_ @ $325
8C/16T _SR7_ @ $400
8C/16T _SR9_ (halo) @ $500
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> The 8C/8T CPU is probably the weirdest design possible. SMT itself should take such little area that disabling it alone is only useful for segmentation, and having an 8C/8T CPU with a 6C/12T is just bad when the former will be rarer, barely any faster, and also have 10-15% worse perf/W. It's just going to be more difficult to make while also essentially being worse than the alternative all around. 6C/6T is more sensible as it has an actual performance advantage against 4C/8T, but IMO SMT defects are still rare enough to make any CPU with it defective straight into 4C/4T, along with other large core and cache defects.


8C/8T is definitely a viable product. It can provide more throughput than a 6C/12T, with almost matching single-thread clocks, and the die is practically already there. You may forget that Zen was originally a Q4 product, but it was delayed due to two problems with the A0 stepping; one of those relating to SMT. Now suppose that AMD had already started mass production of A0 chips, ready for a late Q4 release. They have to go somewhere, and apart from SMT, it's perfectly good silicon. Far too good to waste. I wouldn't have an issue with SMT-disabled chips existing. You could also get higher clocks from these parts.

Also, please don't focus too much on 6C/12T. It's a more unlikely candidate than 8C/8T, given what we know. But I felt like I needed to mention it to cover the possible configurations.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Disabling SMT on a Raven Ridge dual-core also seems ridiculous, the core complex itself is going to be maybe 45mm^2 max, and even a 2C/4T CPU is fairly weak. Against the new Pentiums those would have to be clocked higher or priced in the $50 range which is really not much even for small defective APU. With Raven Ridge the new "Athlon" ~3GHz quads might well make it to the $90-100 range.


Absolutely. Honestly, I am completely against any form of dual-core existing, but what do you want AMD to do with defective quad-core dies? There's my take on it. I don't like it, but it's possible. However, I fully expect 4C/4T to take on the Pentiums and Core i3s.

It seems evident that AMD wants to give you more horsepower for your money, which will make up for the lack of IPC against Intel's best. We already knew this was the case, before Zen was even physically shown off.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> It's a perfectly valid reason that quad-core parts will feature identical clock speeds to the octa-core parts. In fact, I have brought that up before. But if that is the case, it means AMD is relying heavily on high core counts yet again. We don't need 8C/16T against 4C/8T, because that spells disaster for the single-thread performance. We need 4C/8T vs. 4C/8T, or, if you like, 4C/8T vs. 4C/4T. Give someone a reason to move from their Core i5 or Core i7. If you can get an i7 for the cost of an i5 (which is a perfectly possible scenario), I'm sure they will jump ship. Not to mention that there is 8C/16T support on the same socket, which Intel doesn't offer.


The main issue I see with >4GHz out-of-the-box turbo clocks for quads is that very few chips can do that with some minor margin for actual production. Even Intel's 7700k has a TDP of 91W, and according to rumours there are no >65W quad/hexa SKUs at release(though the hexa was supposedly a good 10W past the TDP...). And still, even if the 4C/8T CPU comes at 3.6/4GHz (with maybe 100MHz extra from XFR) @65W with 95% 7700k IPC and at the $200-225 range it's going to look good against Intels i5s. If it can OC past 4.5GHz it's also going to look great against the 7700k.

Nowhere is it a requirement that AMD has to have exact competitors for Intel chips. It makes more sense to make sidesteps to avoid the competitor's strengths, if you're not straight out better. The reality is, as long as Intel has even a slight IPC advantage with the clocks Kaby Lake i7 is at it's practically impossible to look good against them in raw ST performance. The three "easy" cards for AMD are core count, price and efficiency. Losing ~10% absolute ST for saving $150 and slight efficiency gain or 50% more cores doesn't look bad, IMO.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I'm sorry, but AMD has invested heavily in the gaming market, and that is actually the segment that has given them their highest profits. The company has also stated that it wants to focus on gaming, so it would make perfect sense for a quad-core to be gunning Intel for the single-thread performance crown. I don't care whether it's meeting Skylake or not, but it seems evident to me that for a market that AMD cares so much about, it will have to push clock speeds higher for lower core counts.
> In the back of my head, I'm not really expecting any dual-core designs. I even alluded to this in a previous article. But you seem to be misinterpreting the article. It's not predicting anything, it's giving possible configurations. They are possibilities, but they are not predictions.


IMHO, it just doesn't make sense to gun for a 125W quad to get close to Intel, as even with BW-E IPC Zen would need to clock at ~4.8GHz to match the 7700k. The efficiency would be far worse than the Intel chip and the cost would be $400+ because binning those would be ridiculously hard and they wouldn't even sell well. It'd be the FX-9590 all over again, AMD chip fails to match Intel while being ridiculously hot and power hungry.

It'd honestly be better to just stick with the $150-225 quads, that should do 4.1GHz or so for ST automatically anyway. Great price with good efficiency has far more appeal to it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> In the back of my head, I'm not really expecting any dual-core designs. I even alluded to this in a previous article. But you seem to be misinterpreting the article. It's not predicting anything, it's giving possible configurations. They are possibilities, but they are not predictions.
> 
> If you want my predictions, here they are (prices are for the slowest models):
> 
> 4C/4T _SR3_ @ $125
> 4C/8T _SR3_ @ $200
> 6C/6T _SR5_ @ $225
> 6C/12T _SR5_ @ $275
> 8C/8T _SR7_ @ $325
> 8C/16T _SR7_ @ $400
> 8C/16T _SR9_ (halo) @ $500


Not unreasonable. My own would be $25-50 more for most SKUs and the complete lack of 6C/6T an 8C/8T.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> 8C/8T is definitely a viable product. It can provide more throughput than a 6C/12T, with almost matching single-thread clocks, and the die is practically already there. You may forget that Zen was originally a Q4 product, but it was delayed due to two problems with the A0 stepping; one of those relating to SMT. Now suppose that AMD had already started mass production of A0 chips, ready for a late Q4 release. They have to go somewhere, and apart from SMT, it's perfectly good silicon. Far too good to waste. I wouldn't have an issue with SMT-disabled chips existing. You could also get higher clocks from these parts.
> Also, please don't focus too much on 6C/12T. It's a more unlikely candidate than 8C/8T, given what we know. But I felt like I needed to mention it to cover the possible configurations.


I'm doubtful about that happening. My guess is that they deliberately made a slightly ambiguous statement about the release date and it ended up paying off, both to fix the bug and up the clocks slightly.

It's more likely than 8C/8T, IMO. Few rumours from different sources have already said that both CCXs have to have identical amount of cores active to be usable at the same time which very strongly points to a hexa. It also has the benefit of being easier on binning and having better efficiency over the 8C/8T model, which doesn't make much sense outside of a failed stepping, which seems less likely.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Absolutely. Honestly, I am completely against any form of dual-core existing, but what do you want AMD to do with defective quad-core dies? There's my take on it. I don't like it, but it's possible. However, I fully expect 4C/4T to take on the Pentiums and Core i3s.
> 
> It seems evident that AMD wants to give you more horsepower for your money, which will make up for the lack of IPC against Intel's best. We already knew this was the case, before Zen was even physically shown off.


Make duals with SMT? I only stated that having even SMT disabled on those makes very little since the dies are already so small, which should make the amount of actual dies with two cores and SMT on either/both of the remaining defective very small. I'm not _too_ opposed to those, even though they do slow software development. Though, even duals with SMT will probably start to be unusable for many new games before the end of 2018 as even modern duals are right on the edge. Zen and Coffee Lake are not going to help with that.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> The guy is suggesting fusing off two cores in a complex, which I don't see happening...
> 
> A core complex is 4-core Ryzen and a two core complex is an 8 core Ryzen. AMD will probably play with HT to address other markets.


Perfect yields? In your dreams.
If 1 core is dead, AMD will use cut off or turn off CCX and sell them as quad cores?
= spend more, earn less.

4C/6C/8C - with SMT off/on

There might be even 4C with 16MB L3$ (if more than 1 core is dead in each CCX)

Same as bulldozers
FX 4300 = 4MB
FX 4350 = 8MB

OMG!? Did you just found out that 2 modules shared 4MB of L3$ in BD/PD?
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4350.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4300.html


----------



## ihatelolcats

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *breenemeister*
> 
> I want reverse hyper-threading/reverse SMT. Could you imagine the performance you could get in single threaded stuff without really sacrificing much when you start with an 8 core chip? I'm dreaming though.
> 
> 
> 
> With as much advancements as the tech world has made, I'm surprised that they haven't figured out a way to spread single threaded tasks across multiple cores/threads. When I got my first dual core I was surprised to find that this wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

from what i understand, this is impossible. it isn't a matter of technology but of logic. correct me if im wrong


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ihatelolcats*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> With as much advancements as the tech world has made, I'm surprised that they haven't figured out a way to spread single threaded tasks across multiple cores/threads. When I got my first dual core I was surprised to find that this wasn't the case.
> 
> 
> 
> from what i understand, this is impossible. it isn't a matter of technology but of logic. correct me if im wrong
Click to expand...

No, you are correct. Some things cannot be done in parallel. Single threaded performance will always be important.

C = A - B
D = C / E

You have to figure out C before you can calculate D.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> The main issue I see with >4GHz out-of-the-box turbo clocks for quads is that very few chips can do that with some minor margin for actual production. Even Intel's 7700k has a TDP of 91W, and according to rumours there are no >65W quad/hexa SKUs at release(though the hexa was supposedly a good 10W past the TDP...). And still, even if the 4C/8T CPU comes at 3.6/4GHz (with maybe 100MHz extra from XFR) @65W with 95% 7700k IPC and at the $200-225 range it's going to look good against Intels i5s. If it can OC past 4.5GHz it's also going to look great against the 7700k.
> 
> IMHO, it just doesn't make sense to gun for a 125W quad to get close to Intel, as even with BW-E IPC Zen would need to clock at ~4.8GHz to match the 7700k. The efficiency would be far worse than the Intel chip and the cost would be $400+ because binning those would be ridiculously hard and they wouldn't even sell well. It'd be the FX-9590 all over again, AMD chip fails to match Intel while being ridiculously hot and power hungry.


The 7700K is a 91 W part, but it has only 8 MB of cache. The top quad SKU could retain the full 16 MB of cache, just like the FX-4350 retained the full 8 MB from Piledriver. That will help lessen the pressure on clock speeds a little, but I am primarily looking at 125-watt quads to compete with Kaby Lake-X. 4.20 GHz should be doable, and considering the kind of consumer that these chips are aimed at, XFR should easily give these chips a good boost with high-end air coolers and liquid coolers.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Perfect yields? In your dreams.
> If 1 core is dead, AMD will use cut off or turn off CCX and sell them as quad cores?l


You can turn off one CCX, or you can disable two cores from each. If both are enabled, they need to have an equal number of cores active/disabled. And personally, I'm going with 8C/8T over 6C/12T. But, hey, we might even have both.

Also, 16 MB on a quad-core, is definitely a Kaby Lake-X competitor.


----------



## TrevBlu19

http://www.3dcenter.org/news/neue-ryzen-takraten-ergeben-aktualisiertes-ryzen-portfolio-samt-neuer-performance-abschaetzung

I didh't think these needed a new thread so here's some specs according to 3dcenter..


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://www.3dcenter.org/news/neue-ryzen-takraten-ergeben-aktualisiertes-ryzen-portfolio-samt-neuer-performance-abschaetzung
> 
> I didh't think these needed a new thread so here's some specs according to 3dcenter..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> [...] But if that is the case, it means AMD is relying heavily on high core counts yet again. We don't need 8C/16T against 4C/8T, because that spells disaster for the single-thread performance. We need 4C/8T vs. 4C/8T, or, if you like, 4C/8T vs. 4C/4T. [...]


6C/12T versus 7700K. Oh dear.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://www.3dcenter.org/news/neue-ryzen-takraten-ergeben-aktualisiertes-ryzen-portfolio-samt-neuer-performance-abschaetzung
> 
> I didh't think these needed a new thread so here's some specs according to 3dcenter..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> 6C/12T versus 7700K. Oh dear.


I was going to get disappointed then realized the 6 core is clocked lower than the 7700k. yes the 6 core will be slower in some instances.

3.3ghz base and 3.7ghz turbo vs 4.2ghz base vs 4.5ghz turbo.

This is more than what I expected from AMD. I am excited


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I was going to get disappointed then realized the 6 core is clocked lower than the 7700k. yes the 6 core will be slower in some instances.
> 
> 3.3ghz base and 3.7ghz turbo vs 4.2ghz base vs 4.5ghz turbo.


It's clocked lower. Indeed. But it's still clocked higher than Broadwell, and slower.

However, I can only hope, and I really do *hope*, that this graph is a mixture of 128b and 256b workloads. If they are all 128b, it spells trouble.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> It's clocked lower. Indeed. But it's still clocked higher than Broadwell, and slower.
> 
> However, I can only hope, and I really do *hope*, that this graph is a mixture of 128b and 256b workloads. If they are all 128b, it spells trouble.


Yes I realized it is slower than the Broadwell. That is still acceptable both having the same cores and threads.


----------



## Kuivamaa

These are just guesstimates/extrapolations from canard leaks , with all the uncertainty these words carry and not actual benchmarks.


----------



## cjwilson

If they are purely speculation, then all is well. For now.


----------



## Tojara

If both the 7700k and the Zen hexa are running at base clock and cores scaled nearly linearly, the 7700k would have a ~15% IPC advantage. In reality the 7700k should run at 4.4-4.5GHz the entire time and the cores aren't adding too much. Out of the six programs, 3DSMax 15 seems to scale really poorly (6700k>6950x), Corona scales excellently, as do Blender and PovRay. WPrime also scales well, but not quite as well as the former three. Handbrake can be anything from nothing to excellent depending on what you're doing. With an average 1080p clip cores don't help much, which is what I'm guessing they did. So for scaling, three excellent, one good, two minimal.

With perfect scaling the 6900k should be at 125-130%. Given that Zen was still heavily in debugging stage when the tests were run and that it has only a 100MHz advantage in multi-core against the 6900k with a marginal performance deficit it's doing extremely well. That's a 5-6% IPC advantage for the 6900k, with should be mostly eaten up by improvements and fixes after the original benchmarks were run.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrevBlu19*
> 
> http://www.3dcenter.org/news/neue-ryzen-takraten-ergeben-aktualisiertes-ryzen-portfolio-samt-neuer-performance-abschaetzung
> 
> I didh't think these needed a new thread so here's some specs according to 3dcenter..


Sources https://videocardz.com/65654/amd-ryzen-6-core-cpu-exists

6 core + SMT, 16 MB L3, 3.3/3.7 GHz

implies the 6 core will have as much L3 cache as the 8 core. This would mean the 6 core will be a great buy if the price is lower than the SR7 by at least 25-30% and within the <$350 range. Right now it has to contend with i7-5820K and i7-6800k which have more PCIE lanes and quad channel DDR4.

The chart on 3dcenter is alarming though in that the 6 core appears to be slower than the i7-6800k & i7-7700k but faster than i7-6700k:


4/3.7 * 85% ~ 92% , possibly ahead of the i7-6800k when Zen 6 core is 4Ghz BUT an [email protected] would be 112% or 113% (on par with zen 8 core at stock) and a 5GHz i7-7700k would score about 98%

Tabulated with 4.2 Ghz Ryzen ,if you see this somewhere posted as "news" then it will be hilarious because I made it



Which would imply Ryzen 8 core < $587 , Ryzen 6 core < $412 because it would require 4.7-4.8Ghz overclocks to reach the Intel performance at the average OC.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Sources https://videocardz.com/65654/amd-ryzen-6-core-cpu-exists
> 
> 6 core + SMT, 16 MB L3, 3.3/3.7 GHz
> 
> implies the 6 core will have as much L3 cache as the 8 core. This would mean the 6 core will be a great buy if the price is lower than the SR7 by at least 25-30% and within the <$350 range. Right now it has to contend with i7-5820K and i7-6800k *which have more PCIE lanes* and quad channel DDR4.


That is the one thing that seems a little disappointing to me, I wish that at least the 8c/16t variants had a competitive number of PCIE lanes. The quad channel memory isn't very important to me but 40 vs. 24 pcie lanes is a pretty big gap.


----------



## Raghar

Interesting, highest speed in 6 core is slower than 8 core. If these are actual values and not computed ones, it would be about as fast as non OC broadwell, per core.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Interesting, highest speed in 6 core is slower than 8 core. If these are actual values and not computed ones, it would be about as fast as non OC broadwell, per core.


They are computed from the previous 3.30 GHz 8C/16T CPC leaks, which I think is the 100% baseline. So nothing with real world figures yet. I hope for that soon though.


----------



## cjwilson

*AVX-128*
6 × (3.3 × 16) = 316.8 GFLOPs
4 × (4.2 × 16) = 268.8 GFLOPs

And it's still below. That's what I was getting at. The clocks aren't affecting the throughput versus KBL. The architecture is just not as good.

Also, the second frequency is a single-core Turbo Core clock, not for all cores. XFR goes beyond this.


----------



## DarkRadeon7000

This just came on wccf.AMD's answer to the 6900K may be the $320 R7 1700. Even if this is 10% slower than the 6900 this is my next CPU. Hopefully this is also an indication of Vega being groundbreaking as well

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-specs-confirmed/


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkRadeon7000*
> 
> AMD's answer to the 6900K may be the $320 R7 1700. Even if this is 10% slower than the 6900 this is my next CPU. Hopefully this is also an indication of Vega being groundbreaking as well
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-specs-confirmed/


Its not confirmed, it's a rumor.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Its not confirmed, it's a rumor.


Did You read? It was confirmed from a retailer.

Wow 3.7ghz. Must be turbo speed.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Did You read? It was confirmed from a retailer.
> 
> Wow 3.7ghz. Must be turbo speed.


"Confirmed". The phrasing in that article was very similar to the "confirmed" 1500 MHz easy overclock on Polaris. I think we should keep in mind the publication we're talking about.

That being said, this close to launch I'd say it stands to reason that there will be more leaks. So I'll stay optimistic, but I won't believe it.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> "Confirmed". The phrasing in that article was very similar to the "confirmed" 1500 MHz easy overclock on Polaris. I think we should keep in mind the publication we're talking about.
> 
> That being said, this close to launch I'd say it stands to reason that there will be more leaks. So I'll stay optimistic, but I won't believe it.


Did I retailer post that Polaris can overclock to 1500mhz?

Sir please stop.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Did I retailer post that Polaris can overclock to 1500mhz?
> 
> Sir please stop.


In his defense, there have been plenty of times where retailers have put incorrect information out on their website before the launch of a product. Nothing is really confirmed until AMD actually releases it. So it's a coin toss, could be completely accurate but it could also be off the mark. I think it's good to remain grounded and keep an open mind about things until they are official.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> In his defense, there have been plenty of times where retailers have put incorrect information out on their website before the launch of a product. Nothing is really confirmed until AMD actually releases it. So it's a coin toss, could be completely accurate but it could also be off the mark. I think it's good to remain grounded and keep an open mind about things until they are official.


I can't argue with that. I agree. But he can't say it's not so because wccft posted it. They got the info from a retailer and not out of thin air.

Therefore no one can say it is false until the product is out and otherwise is shown. A retailer knows more than we do.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Did You read? It was confirmed from a retailer.
> 
> Wow 3.7ghz. Must be turbo speed.


I am not buying it. The listing mentions XOP and FMA4 instructions being supported. Zen does *NOT* support either because they are Bulldozer-specific.

Yeah, not buying it at all.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I am not buying it. The listing mentions XOP and FMA4 instructions being supported. Zen does *NOT* support either because they are Bulldozer-specific.
> 
> Yeah, not buying it at all.


No one is forcing you to believe and the post didn't say anything about youse instructions. The user made reference to price.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> No one is forcing you to believe and the post didn't say anything about youse instructions. The user made reference to price.


You probably missed it, but I didn't.

http://i.imgur.com/pbM4ztk.png


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> You probably missed it, but I didn't.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/pbM4ztk.png


What does that have to do with price and clock speed?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What does that have to do with price and clock speed?


It has everything to do with the listing being legitimate, which encompasses everything about it. Price and clock speed included.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> It has everything to do with the listing being legitimate, which encompasses everything about it. Price and clock speed included.


For you. That has nothing to do with price


----------



## bigjdubb

It certainly raises doubt, retailers product pages aren't known for their accuracy though. I run across product pages with incorrect details for items that have been on the market for years.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> For you. That has nothing to do with price


I don't know why you are so fixated on price. I am talking about the listing as a whole. @rexolaboy originally brought up the conclusion that this is a rumor and not confirmed, while your counter was that it is confirmed. I understand that you were talking about the price and clock speed because you clearly didn't see the small detail that I picked up on. Now, that is in the open.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> It certainly raises doubt, retailers product pages aren't known for their accuracy though. I run across product pages with incorrect details for items that have been on the market for years.


That is true. Both AMD and Intel's own product specification pages have inaccuracies, but you would think with WCCF even writing an article about Zen abandoning FMA4 and XOP, that it would pick up on that (and any other average Joe who wishes to produce a fake webpage to stir up excitement).


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> It certainly raises doubt, retailers product pages aren't known for their accuracy though. I run across product pages with incorrect details for items that have been on the market for years.


That's all I'm saying...


----------



## rexolaboy

I read it, I will answer you with a question. Was AMD the retailer that "confirmed" these details? Until AMD "confirms" then this is all just a bunch of hype and really dangerous for a product launch at that. People did their best to blow Polaris way out of proportion, I don't like seeing it so I try to stop it.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> I read it, I will answer you with a question. Was AMD the retailer that "confirmed" these details? Until AMD "confirms" then this is all just a bunch of hype and really dangerous for a product launch at that. People did their best to blow Polaris way out of proportion, I don't like seeing it so I try to stop it.


Exactly. _Nothing_ is confirmed, unless it's from AMD itself.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> I read it, I will answer you with a question. Was AMD the retailer that "confirmed" these details? Until AMD "confirms" then this is all just a bunch of hype and really dangerous for a product launch at that. People did their best to blow Polaris way out of proportion, I don't like seeing it so I try to stop it.


In your opinion...

When you have info that says otherwise the retailer is 200 times more credible than you


----------



## rexolaboy

In my opinion, which is logical. All speculation is incorrect until proven correct. Unless AMD says "Product A has feature B for $C" it’s all speculation. I read retailer pages too you know, they are goofy as heck and throw things in there as place holders. I am all for speculative threads, but when the word “confirmation” is thrown in I HAVE to blow a whistle.


----------



## Rabit

New Leaks:

https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here

Looks good


----------



## DarkRadeon7000

Ryzen Coolers leaked. Wow they look awesome

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-cpu-coolers-leaked-wraith-95w-65w-versions/




The red strip actually glows red!


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I've seen errors on newegg many times when shopping there. The most important this is that the get price and main specs correct. I've never looked at instruction sets when buying a cpu and most people don't.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> [...] When you have info that says otherwise the retailer is 200 times more credible than you


The issue isn't that it's coming from a retailer. Nor is it that some of the details might be false. The issue is that WCCF wrote an article about Zen abandoning FMA4 and XOP instructions, and somehow failed to notice that in the article you linked. It's public knowledge at this point; it's hard to miss. Certainly, if you don't look at instruction extensions when shopping for processors (which most general consumers don't), you will miss it. The issue here is that WCCF are not average Joes; they are tech enthusiasts (self-proclaimed as I don't consider WCCF too good myself) like us. We can pick out things like this, but somehow an _entire group_ of people failed to do so.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> In my opinion, which is logical. *All speculation is incorrect until proven correct.* Unless AMD says "Product A has feature B for $C" it's all speculation. I read retailer pages too you know, they are goofy as heck and throw things in there as place holders. I am all for speculative threads, *but when the word "confirmation" is thrown in I HAVE to blow a whistle.*


@budgetgamer120, *this* is what I have a problem with. You are considering this leak at best, to be genuine and concrete evidence. Let's wait it out before jumping the gun.

@rexolaboy, I am in agreement with you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rabit*
> 
> New Leaks:
> 
> https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here
> 
> Looks good


I am going to assume that XFR is disabled as it's something AMD will likely want to wait until the launch event to show off. Turbo was also disabled; whether that is to prevent XFR from doing its thing, or due to the A320 chipset, is unknown. I am going with the former, simply because there's no reason why the A320 chipset can't be capable of supporting CPUs with Turbo Core. Overclocking, no, but Turbo Core is nothing enthusiast-level.

Also, in regards to some of those test results; that DDR4-2400 memory used has terribly bad latencies. Even most DDR4-3200 kits have latencies of 15-16 cycles. So, absolutely, those results could all be improved with a decent memory kit (or even half decent, for that matter).

Given that Turbo Core is disabled, we're looking at results at 3.40 GHz. Below, I have calculated the scores for the chip at various frequencies comparable to the competition, as well as at the chip's two Turbo Core frequencies of 3.80 GHz (single-core), and 3.60 GHz (all cores). XFR will also skew the results beyond these frequencies, so bear that in mind too. (Contained in a spoiler to keep the post legible for mobile users.)



Spoiler: Some Calculations:



*All results will be improved somewhat with half-decent non-crap RAM.*


*PassMark CPU Mark - Overall (pts):*
15085 × (36.25 ÷ 34) = *16083*

*PassMark CPU Mark - Single-Threaded Floating-Point (million ops/sec):*
2046 × (38 ÷ 34) = *2287* vs. i7-6850K (2216)
2046 × (37 ÷ 34) = *2227* vs. i7-6900K (2307)
2046 × (42 ÷ 34) = *2527* vs. i7-6700K (~ 2450)
2046 × (45 ÷ 34) = *2708* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (2625)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Floating-Point (million ops/sec):*
14807 × (36 ÷ 34) = *15678*
14807 × (35 ÷ 34) = *15243* vs. i7-6900K (16651)
14807 × (45 ÷ 34) = *19598* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (8693)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Integer (million ops/sec):*
39672 × (36 ÷ 34) = *42006* ←  (i7-6950X = 42698)
39672 × (35 ÷ 34) = *40839* vs. i7-6900K (37168)
39672 × (45 ÷ 34) = *52507* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (21371)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Prime Numbers (million primes/sec):*
37 × (36 ÷ 34) = *39*
37 × (35 ÷ 34) = *38* vs. i7-6900K (66)
37 × (45 ÷ 34) = *49* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (32)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Compression (kB/sec):*
24723 × (36 ÷ 34) = *26177*
24723 × (35 ÷ 34) = *25450* vs. i7-6900K (29105)
24723 × (45 ÷ 34) = *32722* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (17145)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Physics (frames/sec):*
726 × (36 ÷ 34) = *769*
726 × (35 ÷ 34) = *747* vs. i7-6900K (1272)
726 × (45 ÷ 34) = *961* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (714)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Encryption (MB/sec):*
3865 × (36 ÷ 34) = *4092*
3865 × (35 ÷ 34) = *3979* vs. i7-6900K (4061)
3865 × (45 ÷ 34) = *5115* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (2881)

*PassMark CPU Mark - Multi-Threaded Sorting (million strings/sec):*
15204 × (36 ÷ 34) = *16098*
15204 × (35 ÷ 34) = *15651* vs. i7-6900K (16787)
15204 × (45 ÷ 34) = *20123* vs. i7-7700K & i7-7740K (10156)





Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkRadeon7000*
> 
> Ryzen Coolers leaked. Wow they look awesome
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-cpu-coolers-leaked-wraith-95w-65w-versions/
> 
> The red strip actually glows red!


Raja certainly looks pleased.







I must say, I am liking those coolers. Perhaps the color is programmable?


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Raja certainly looks pleased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say, I am liking those coolers. Perhaps the color is programmable?


If they make these coolers look much better, I may be tempted to not get an aftermarket cooler.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> If they make these coolers look much better, I may be tempted to not get an aftermarket cooler.


Regardless, they make the stock Intel coolers look like Chinese tat.

Burn Intel, burn.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> If they make these coolers look much better, I may be tempted to not get an aftermarket cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, they make the stock Intel coolers look like Chinese tat.
> 
> Burn Intel, burn.
Click to expand...

The mounting system on the stock intel coolers is so bad - how did they manage something so awful with the resources they have? I'd be embarrassed to put out such a thing.


----------



## iLeakStuff

https://mobile.twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/830756074126970880


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/830756074126970880


Amazing gif


----------



## cjwilson

Some more calculations, based on the results of my previous ones here.

AMD Ryzen 7-1700X vs. Intel Core i7-6900K in PassMark PerformanceTest v9

*Note:*
The results take into account the poor DDR4 memory choice for the Ryzen test, and I have attempted to provide a somewhat more accurate overall set of scores for a fully functional Ryzen 7-1700X processor (with turbo).

SemiAccurate user, itsmydamnation, decided to find out exactly how much the poor choice of system memory was affecting these scores. He used his i7-3770K, and altered his DDR3 memory to 1066 MT/s, at both 10-11-10, and 7-7-7 cycles.

He concluded that the end result is almost consistent; the latencies are negatively affecting performance throughout the benchmark - by as much as 29% in one instance (the prime numbers test). He suggests adding ~800 to the final PassMark score, but I've taken it one step further and calculated the differences between the two sets of scores for each of his memory timing settings. I then followed that up with what I think are end results that are more accurate than what we've been given thus far.

Credit for the baseline information goes to him (since I can't join the forum to thank him properly).


----------



## Zaor

Great stuff,can we see a cinebench R15 single core cpu?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zaor*
> 
> Great stuff,can we see a cinebench R15 single core cpu?


For Ryzen? Unfortunately, there are no known results for that yet.

However, going by PassMark's single-thread floating-point test, we can compute some guesstimations. It also helps greatly that Cinebench is also a floating-point benchmark.









I'll use both the original PassMark calculation result from this post, and the one I calculated in the spreadsheet.

*2046 @ 3.40 GHz*

*3.80 GHz*

2046 × (38 ÷ 34) = *2287 pts*
For some reason, the crappier RAM timings improved single-thread performance in the 3770K test, so based on the spreadsheet, we get *2246 pts*
*3.90 GHz*

2287 × (39 ÷ 38) = *2347 pts*
2246 × (39 ÷ 38) = *2305 pts*

For comparison, the i7-2700K, i7-3770K and i7-4770K all have 3.90 GHz single-thread turbo frequencies. This makes the next part so much easier.

i7-2700K @ 3.90 GHz = *2010 pts*
i7-3770K @ 3.90 GHz = *2084 pts*
i7-4770K @ 3.90 GHz = *2254 pts*

So, thus far, it seems to be above Haswell, but likely below Broadwell. Now, let's translate this into Cinebench R15 figures:

i7-2700K @ 3.90 GHz = *140 cb*
i7-3770K @ 3.90 GHz = *143 cb*
i7-4770K @ 3.90 GHz = *159 cb*

#1) Ryzen 7-1700X @ 3.90 GHz = 159 × (2347 ÷ 2254) = *166 cb*
#2) Ryzen 7-1700X @ 3.90 GHz = 159 × (2305 ÷ 2254) = *163 cb*

The average appears to be *165 cb for Ryzen @ 3.90 GHz*. In contrast, Skylake @ 3.90 GHz should score approximately *170 cb*, while Broadwell @ 3.90 GHz should achieve 159 cb, with aid from its eDRAM, of course. It appears from Cinebench, that Haswell's higher clocks make up for the loss of eDRAM and IPC versus Broadwell, so they are roughly the same clock-for-clock.

Regardless, my conclusion to this, is that Zen appears to be within touching distance of Skylake and Kaby Lake, clock-for-clock. The exact figure is 3% slower, which ties perfectly into my previous estimations of Zen IPC; the table can be seen here.









*Edit:* Oops. Still typing this up. I accidentally hit Ctrl+Enter prematurely.








*Edit:* I will now attempt to add this to the spreadsheet.


----------



## Zaor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> For Ryzen? Unfortunately, there are no known results for that yet.
> 
> However, going by PassMark's single-thread floating-point test, we can compute some guesstimations. It also helps greatly that Cinebench is also a floating-point benchmark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll use both the original PassMark calculation result from this post, and the one I calculated in the spreadsheet.
> 
> *2046 @ 3.40 GHz*
> 
> *3.80 GHz*
> 
> 2046 × (38 ÷ 34) = *2287 pts*
> For some reason, the crappier RAM timings improved single-thread performance in the 3770K test, so based on the spreadsheet, we get *2246 pts*
> *3.90 GHz*
> 
> 2287 × (39 ÷ 38) = *2347 pts*
> 2246 × (39 ÷ 38) = *2305 pts*
> 
> For comparison, the i7-2700K, i7-3770K and i7-4770K all have 3.90 GHz single-thread turbo frequencies. This makes the next part so much easier.
> 
> i7-2700K @ 3.90 GHz = *2010 pts*
> i7-3770K @ 3.90 GHz = *2084 pts*
> i7-4770K @ 3.90 GHz = *2254 pts*
> 
> So, thus far, it seems to be above Haswell, but likely below Broadwell. Now, let's translate this into Cinebench R15 figures:
> 
> i7-2700K @ 3.90 GHz = *140 cb*
> i7-3770K @ 3.90 GHz = *143 cb*
> i7-4770K @ 3.90 GHz = *159 cb*
> 
> #1) Ryzen 7-1700X @ 3.90 GHz = 159 × (2347 ÷ 2254) = *166 cb*
> #2) Ryzen 7-1700X @ 3.90 GHz = 159 × (2305 ÷ 2254) = *163 cb*
> 
> The average appears to be *165 cb for Ryzen @ 3.90 GHz*. In contrast, Skylake @ 3.90 GHz should score approximately *170 cb*, while Broadwell @ 3.90 GHz should achieve 159 cb, with aid from its eDRAM, of course. It appears from Cinebench, that Haswell's higher clocks make up for the loss of eDRAM and IPC versus Broadwell, so they are roughly the same clock-for-clock.
> 
> Regardless, my conclusion to this, is that Zen appears to be within touching distance of Skylake and Kaby Lake, clock-for-clock. The exact figure is 3% slower, which ties perfectly into my previous estimations of Zen IPC; the table can be seen here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit:* Oops. Still typing this up. I accidentally hit Ctrl+Enter prematurely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit:* I will now attempt to add this to the spreadsheet.


.
Good job,exactly where i thought it would be at stock.I've noticed that a high single core score in R15 translates in higher fps in games even among intel cpus.My old moderately 4.3ghz oced x5670 scores only 130 cb,finally the first amd cpu that blows it our of the water at stock even.All i can say if these scores translate in other benchmark situations we will have our long awaited much needed competition to this dreaded cpu monopoly that's been going for the past 5 years and drive these 8 core $1000+ intel down to realistic levels at this time and age.


----------



## steadly2004

delete*


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> The mounting system on the stock intel coolers is so bad - how did they manage something so awful with the resources they have? I'd be embarrassed to put out such a thing.


Possibly trying to get away with spending as little as possible. You know how corporations can get.


----------



## cjwilson

I was looking over the leaked table of models, and it got me thinking.

AMD applies TDPs differently to Intel. AMD works with defined thermal brackets. For example, you've seen 15, 35, 45, 65, 95, 125 and 140 W processors. If a chip fails to clock at a certain level within 65 W for example, it gets assigned the next bracket up; in this case, 95 W.

Intel, in contrast, tends to be a little more precise, which is why we have odd figures such as 51, 54, 77, 84, 88, 91 and 112 W.

So, with AMD's methodology in mind, the figures in the leaked table got me thinking. The Ryzen 5-1400X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and a single-core turbo of 3.90 GHz. It is assigned the 65 W thermal bracket.

We know Intel has marginally better Kaby Lake 'superclocked' parts coming with 112 W TDPs, and it seems rather silly to think that AMD wouldn't want to compete, when there is thermal headroom to do so. I've met a few people on forums who seem to think that Ryzen maxes out at 95 watts; that might be the case for the initial introduction, but there's no reason why later products can't come with higher clocks. After all, this ideology seems plausible given that AMD has left incremental gaps of 100 in the model names, and there's also space in the product stack for a 1900(X).

I have every reason to think that AMD is holding back higher clocked 4C and 6C parts until a later date. This will ensure that the 8C parts get maximum attention from release. It's also wise to maintain a simple organized product stack on release, which can then be added to later.

So, with Kaby Lake-X and the Ryzen 5-1400X in mind, just where exactly could Zen clock with 4 cores and 8 threads? Of course, this completely ignores XFR's capabilities because we have absolutely no idea how that feature performs. It could improve single-thread clocks by 200 MHz; on the other hand, it could increase them by 600-1000 MHz, depending on the chip.

Some rough calculations can provide estimations of where clock speeds can go before hitting the upper thermal brackets that AMD can quite possibly reuse once again (with the exception of 220 W).

Click


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I was looking over the leaked table of models, and it got me thinking.
> 
> AMD applies TDPs differently to Intel. AMD works with defined thermal brackets. For example, you've seen 15, 35, 45, 65, 95, 125 and 140 W processors. If a chip fails to clock at a certain level within 65 W for example, it gets assigned the next bracket up; in this case, 95 W.
> 
> Intel, in contrast, tends to be a little more precise, which is why we have odd figures such as 51, 54, 77, 84, 88, 91 and 112 W.
> 
> So, with AMD's methodology in mind, the figures in the leaked table got me thinking. The Ryzen 5-1400X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and a single-core turbo of 3.90 GHz. It is assigned the 65 W thermal bracket.
> 
> We know Intel has marginally better Kaby Lake 'superclocked' parts coming with 112 W TDPs, and it seems rather silly to think that AMD wouldn't want to compete, when there is thermal headroom to do so. I've met a few people on forums who seem to think that Ryzen maxes out at 95 watts; that might be the case for the initial introduction, but there's no reason why later products can't come with higher clocks. After all, this ideology seems plausible given that AMD has left incremental gaps of 100 in the model names, and there's also space in the product stack for a 1900(X).
> 
> I have every reason to think that AMD is holding back higher clocked 4C and 6C parts until a later date. This will ensure that the 8C parts get maximum attention from release. It's also wise to maintain a simple organized product stack on release, which can then be added to later.
> 
> So, with Kaby Lake-X and the Ryzen 5-1400X in mind, just where exactly could Zen clock with 4 cores and 8 threads? Of course, this completely ignores XFR's capabilities because we have absolutely no idea how that feature performs. It could improve single-thread clocks by 200 MHz; on the other hand, it could increase them by 600-1000 MHz, depending on the chip.
> 
> Some rough calculations can provide estimations of where clock speeds can go before hitting the upper thermal brackets that AMD can quite possibly reuse once again (with the exception of 220 W).
> 
> Click


Intels TDP rating is built on the least possible cooling for a worst case scenario,it is not an indicator of anything beyond what cooling solution is required.


----------



## Yttrium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I was looking over the leaked table of models, and it got me thinking.
> 
> AMD applies TDPs differently to Intel. AMD works with defined thermal brackets. For example, you've seen 15, 35, 45, 65, 95, 125 and 140 W processors. If a chip fails to clock at a certain level within 65 W for example, it gets assigned the next bracket up; in this case, 95 W.
> 
> Intel, in contrast, tends to be a little more precise, which is why we have odd figures such as 51, 54, 77, 84, 88, 91 and 112 W.
> 
> So, with AMD's methodology in mind, the figures in the leaked table got me thinking. The Ryzen 5-1400X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and a single-core turbo of 3.90 GHz. It is assigned the 65 W thermal bracket.
> 
> We know Intel has marginally better Kaby Lake 'superclocked' parts coming with 112 W TDPs, and it seems rather silly to think that AMD wouldn't want to compete, when there is thermal headroom to do so. I've met a few people on forums who seem to think that Ryzen maxes out at 95 watts; that might be the case for the initial introduction, but there's no reason why later products can't come with higher clocks. After all, this ideology seems plausible given that AMD has left incremental gaps of 100 in the model names, and there's also space in the product stack for a 1900(X).
> 
> I have every reason to think that AMD is holding back higher clocked 4C and 6C parts until a later date. This will ensure that the 8C parts get maximum attention from release. It's also wise to maintain a simple organized product stack on release, which can then be added to later.
> 
> So, with Kaby Lake-X and the Ryzen 5-1400X in mind, just where exactly could Zen clock with 4 cores and 8 threads? Of course, this completely ignores XFR's capabilities because we have absolutely no idea how that feature performs. It could improve single-thread clocks by 200 MHz; on the other hand, it could increase them by 600-1000 MHz, depending on the chip.
> 
> Some rough calculations can provide estimations of where clock speeds can go before hitting the upper thermal brackets that AMD can quite possibly reuse once again (with the exception of 220 W).
> 
> Click
> 
> 
> 
> Intels TDP rating is built on the least possible cooling for a worst case scenario,it is not an indicator of anything beyond what cooling solution is required.
Click to expand...

Almost right. Let me explain,

Power = Heat output. Where heat has a volume and temparature, watts/TDP has a single value to describe the amount of heat an object produces. Companies also mention maximum operating temparature. Together with the wattage/TDP cooling solutions are created. so Yes, TDP is a good way to guess wattage* of a CPU.

*note CPU's can run out of their designed spec by purposefully built programs or certain instructionsets. This ofcourse results in an equal rise in TDP if calculated.


----------



## Raghar

Intel is using TDP as a class. TDP just means required cooling. When CPU consumes only 35 W, but require 60W cooler to get rid of heat, because it has problems with getting heat out of it, it has 65W TDP. FIVR eats a lot of watts as well, thus Intel adds few watts to the original TDP to create hint they might need more efficient cooling solution, if the previous was borderline.

And that's it.

Much better way to get power consumption is to calcluate it from knowing it uses 14 nm technology. 14 nm technology has its limits and when you know max frequency, you can calculate lower bound of power consumption.

Look at this table. It's 14 nm CPU thus you can estimate a power consumption of another 14 nm CPU.

BTW this CPU has TDP 91 W.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yttrium*
> 
> Almost right. Let me explain,
> 
> Power = Heat output. Where heat has a volume and temparature, watts/TDP has a single value to describe the amount of heat an object produces. Companies also mention maximum operating temparature. Together with the wattage/TDP cooling solutions are created. so Yes, TDP is a good way to guess wattage* of a CPU.
> 
> *note CPU's can run out of their designed spec by purposefully built programs or certain instructionsets. This ofcourse results in an equal rise in TDP if calculated.


You missed the point,you are confusing max draw for TDP. TDP is only relevant to cooling solutions.

Example: Y series Ivy bridge chips were marketed as 7w parts,the TDP is 7w but they draw 13w under full load.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> You missed the point,you are confusing max draw for TDP. TDP is only relevant to cooling solutions.
> 
> Example: Y series Ivy bridge chips were marketed as 7w parts,the TDP is 7w but they draw 13w under full load.


If they're drawing 13w of power, they're also dissipating 13w of heat. With a 7w cooling solution your chip is going to throttle after a few seconds at best. In a tablet that might be a valid design tradeoff, in a desktop PC it isn't.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> You missed the point,you are confusing max draw for TDP. TDP is only relevant to cooling solutions.
> 
> Example: Y series Ivy bridge chips were marketed as 7w parts,the TDP is 7w but they draw 13w under full load.


A 1000w iron puts out 1000w of heat. Under certain conditions a 6900k can draw 140w. Which is its tdp.

So it's not always like what you say. If something is putting out 13w of heat it is using 13w of power. There is no way the heat can be generated without the power.


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> A 1000w iron puts out 1000w of heat. Under certain conditions a 6900k can draw 140w. Which is its tdp.
> 
> So it's not always like what you say. If something is putting out 13w of heat it is using 13w of power. There is no way the heat can be generated without the power.


The chip is specified at 7 watts TDP, so it gets a cooling solution that can dissipate 7 watts of heat continuously.. The chip however can draw up to 13 watts for brief periods of time (say when in turbo, or under a heavy multi-threaded load). It cannot maintain that 13 watts of power, as it'll eventually hit a temperature limit. When it hits that limit, it will throttle until it's back down to 7 watts of power.

The i7-2630QM in my laptop would turbo up to ~2.5 GHz under video-encoding tasks, but as the temperature got up to 80-90*C, it would start throttling back down to 2.2-2.3 GHz.

If Intel called it a 13 watt chip, it would require a cooling solution capable of dissipating twice as much heat. But they call it 7 watts, so it only gets a 7 watt cooling solution, and they hope the end user doesn't mind too much when the chip constantly throttles under any kind of heavy load.


----------



## cjwilson

Regardless of how TDP works for either company, the focus point was the spreadsheet. 5.00 GHz on a single core looks achievable, which ties in with what CPC has leaked.

It also suggests a 112-watt Ryzen can clock up to KBL figures, *if* the architecture can clock that high for all cores. *This* is something we don't know yet. But, if AMD wants to compete with SKL and KBL, those kinds of clock speeds are within usable TDPs.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> The chip is specified at 7 watts TDP, so it gets a cooling solution that can dissipate 7 watts of heat continuously.. The chip however can draw up to 13 watts for brief periods of time (say when in turbo, or under a heavy multi-threaded load). It cannot maintain that 13 watts of power, as it'll eventually hit a temperature limit. When it hits that limit, it will throttle until it's back down to 7 watts of power.
> 
> The i7-2630QM in my laptop would turbo up to ~2.5 GHz under video-encoding tasks, but as the temperature got up to 80-90*C, it would start throttling back down to 2.2-2.3 GHz.
> 
> If Intel called it a 13 watt chip, it would require a cooling solution capable of dissipating twice as much heat. But they call it 7 watts, so it only gets a 7 watt cooling solution, and they hope the end user doesn't mind too much when the chip constantly throttles under any kind of heavy load.


if it can draw 13w, what does that make it?


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> if it can draw 13w, what does that make it?


If the chip is a 7 watt TDP, it's a 7-watt chip. TDP is _Thermal_ Design Power. The chip is rated for a 7 watt cooling solution. The chip is capable of drawing more power than the TDP, but it will begin to throttle back down to the TDP limit once it gets hot.

In a perfect world, TDP would specify the maximum amount of power and heat a chip could dissipate. However today's customers demand thinner devices that still perform like larger, heavier ones. So you have to compromise with a low "continuous use" TDP, and allow the chip to briefly exceed the TDP.


----------



## Artikbot

^

TDP just specifies what the cooling solution has to be able to dissipate for extended periods of time while ensuring advertised performance levels. It's not an exhaustive power consumption figure.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> If the chip is a 7 watt TDP, it's a 7-watt chip. TDP is _Thermal_ Design Power. The chip is rated for a 7 watt cooling solution. The chip is capable of drawing more power than the TDP, but it will begin to throttle back down to the TDP limit once it gets hot.
> 
> In a perfect world, TDP would specify the maximum amount of power and heat a chip could dissipate. However today's customers demand thinner devices that still perform like larger, heavier ones. So you have to compromise with a low "continuous use" TDP, and allow the chip to briefly exceed the TDP.


If a chip has the ability to use 13w then it is not a 7w chip.


----------



## DaaQ

Hate to do this, but.
Pile driver is a 125w chip. Right?


----------



## SuperZan

Ouch.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Hate to do this, but.
> Pile driver is a 125w chip. Right?


The 9590 is 220W


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> The 9590 is 220W


Yes. The 8350/20 is 125w. Right.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> If the chip is a 7 watt TDP, it's a 7-watt chip. TDP is _Thermal_ Design Power. The chip is rated for a 7 watt cooling solution. The chip is capable of drawing more power than the TDP, but it will begin to throttle back down to the TDP limit once it gets hot.
> 
> In a perfect world, TDP would specify the maximum amount of power and heat a chip could dissipate. However today's customers demand thinner devices that still perform like larger, heavier ones. So you have to compromise with a low "continuous use" TDP, and allow the chip to briefly exceed the TDP.


Exactly this.

TDP is a worst case cooling scenario value according to Intel,it is the _minimum_ thermal dissipation value required by the cooler design.

AMD use a max draw figure to describe TDP

Nvidia use it to describe the average draw.

While there is no defined value across manufacturers,using it to describe power draw is incorrect.


----------



## Yttrium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> if it can draw 13w, what does that make it?
> 
> 
> 
> If the chip is a 7 watt TDP, it's a 7-watt chip. TDP is _Thermal_ Design Power. The chip is rated for a 7 watt cooling solution. The chip is capable of drawing more power than the TDP, but it will begin to throttle back down to the TDP limit once it gets hot.
> 
> In a perfect world, TDP would specify the maximum amount of power and heat a chip could dissipate. However today's customers demand thinner devices that still perform like larger, heavier ones. So you have to compromise with a low "continuous use" TDP, and allow the chip to briefly exceed the TDP.
Click to expand...

I understand all of this, The question was wether TDP is a good way of guessing power consumption. Yes, you can't compare intel's TDP directly with AMD or Nvidia but thats not the point.

AMD's 65 TDP chip will consume less power than the 95 chip. TDP is just a figure to show how much heat it needs to dissapate while staying under 90C to work correctly. For intel this means a max of 91 watts and for AMD this means the chip is in the 65 watt bracket. Again, wattage = heat, you can't generate more or less heat than you have wattage. That doesn't make any sense. especially in a closed system like this.

and for the last comment, ofcource chips can exeed their tdp for a short time. The average power draw will still stay around the TDP.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yttrium*
> 
> I understand all of this, The question was wether TDP is a good way of guessing power consumption.


As I pointed in my example. It can't. The image shows that 91 W TDP CPU draws continuously 44.93 W in AIDA FPU stress test without any throttling. If you talk about AMD, well look at some power draw numbers with AIDA FPU test.

What limits power consumption of CPU is static power leakage, dynamic power leakage, temperature, and internal design.

Edit: The main limiting factor is 14 nm, and frequency. If they don't have spectacularly better 14 nm technology than Intel, they would have somewhat similar power consumption as Intel at the same speed and voltage. Quad channel RAM eats about 10 W more, so that's about that. Intel CPUs are heavily overclocked by manufacturer, and they eat basically as much for 4.5 GHz with quad core, as eight core for 3.5 GHz.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> As I pointed in my example. It can't. The image shows that 91 W TDP CPU draws continuously 44.93 W in AIDA FPU stress test without any throttling. If you talk about AMD, well look at some power draw numbers with AIDA FPU test.
> 
> What limits power consumption of CPU is static power leakage, dynamic power leakage, temperature, and internal design.


7700k 90w under OCCT while tdp is 91w. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968/the-intel-core-i7-7700k-91w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/11


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> 7700k 90w under OCCT while tdp is 91w. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968/the-intel-core-i7-7700k-91w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/11


The same table shows 88 W TDP to have 110 W, and 91 W TDP to have 68W.
And my overclocked i5-6600K has 66.97 W in Prime.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> Exactly this.
> 
> TDP is a worst case cooling scenario value according to Intel,it is the _minimum_ thermal dissipation value required by the cooler design.
> 
> AMD use a max draw figure to describe TDP
> 
> Nvidia use it to describe the average draw.
> 
> While there is no defined value across manufacturers,using it to describe power draw is incorrect.


Okay cool. So based on our experience with AMD CPUs, these Ryzen parts should not exceed 95 or 65W under most loads, but can if necessary. AMD just anticipates that no more than 95W will need to be dissipated at any time. Am I understanding TDP correctly for this scenario?


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Okay cool. So based on our experience with AMD CPUs, these Ryzen parts should not exceed 95 or 65W under most loads, but can if necessary. AMD just anticipates that no more than 95W will need to be dissipated at any time. Am I understanding TDP correctly for this scenario?


As things stand now,yes....but....

Definitions change all the time,new arch....new rules,who knows.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> The same table shows 88 W TDP to have 110 W, and 91 W TDP to have 68W.
> And my overclocked i5-6600K has 66.97 W in Prime.


The point is a 7700k can use 90w. Tdp is relevant to power consumption. Heart can't be generated without power.


----------



## Hueristic

I'm going to be very happy with 65W you guys can fight over the 90w chips.


----------



## comagnum

Who cares about tdp, it's all semantics at this point. When you over lock, tdp goes out the window. We're in a 14nm node, the power consumption and heat aren't really going to be an issue.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Who cares about tdp, it's all semantics at this point. When you over lock, tdp goes out the window. We're in a 14nm node, the power consumption and heat aren't really going to be an issue.


AMD users have been saying this for years lol. Now everyone gets it that AMD has lower tdp.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> The point is a 7700k can use 90w. Tdp is relevant to power consumption. Heart can't be generated without power.


I think the point people are trying to make is that TDP isn't a universal value.

Different companies use different ways to define it and it's not always equivalent to maximum worst case power consumption.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> I think the point people are trying to make is that TDP isn't a universal value.
> 
> Different companies use different ways to define it and it's not always equivalent to maximum worst case power consumption.


And what I am saying is, someone is not wrong for taking TDP as power consumption. It is a forma way of getting idea of power consumption at max load under certain programs.

You cant generate 90w worth of heat without using 90w worth of electricity. It is impossible.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> And what I am saying is, someone is not wrong for taking TDP as power consumption. It is a forma way of getting idea of power consumption at max load under certain programs.
> 
> You cant generate 90w worth of heat without using 90w worth of electricity. It is impossible.


What if, AMD is defining its power consumption under a 'normal load' and when AVX2 instructions for example are used power consumption is way higher.


----------



## SuperZan

I assume that part of designating a chip as 65w or 95w has something to do with XFR and covering their bases. In their testing they probably found decent cooling to necessitate 95w worth of mitigation in terms of XFR's performance. Chips without XFR would then be set to base and turbo numbers that fit the 65w designation.

Just my lay opinion, but I think that if the charts are accurate that AMD's TDP designations between 65w and 95w are more to do with XFR than firmware locking or extreme binning.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Its almost a moot point at this juncture as nearly every leak that is coming out lately shows Ryzen to be very competitive with intel's latest offerings on every level. While we don't have confirmation of specifics, I think its extremely unlikely at this point that Ryzen will be anything like the catastrophe that BD was, regardless of stated TDP.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> What if, AMD is defining its power consumption under a 'normal load' and when AVX2 instructions for example are used power consumption is way higher.


I know what you mean. My FuryX uses more power while recording. Hence thats why i said the power consumption differs between applications. TDP still isnt useless when it comes to power consumption. That is what we get from the manufacturers.


----------



## artemis2307

I refuse to believe anything until an official benchmark


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I assume that part of designating a chip as 65w or 95w has something to do with XFR and covering their bases. In their testing they probably found decent cooling to necessitate 95w worth of mitigation in terms of XFR's performance. Chips without XFR would then be set to base and turbo numbers that fit the 65w designation.
> 
> Just my lay opinion, but I think that if the charts are accurate that AMD's TDP designations between 65w and 95w are more to do with XFR than firmware locking or extreme binning.


My lay opinion tends to agree with yours on that one.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its almost a moot point at this juncture as nearly every leak that is coming out lately shows Ryzen to be very competitive with intel's latest offerings on every level. While we don't have confirmation of specifics, I think its extremely unlikely at this point that Ryzen will be anything like the catastrophe that BD was, regardless of stated TDP.


Yea Im not trying to rag on Zen, things look great so far and Im excited for the release myself.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I know what you mean. My FuryX uses more power while recording. Hence thats why i said the power consumption differs between applications. TDP still isnt useless when it comes to power consumption. That is what we get from the manufacturers.


They whack TDPS on heatsinks sometimes too, iirc the one that came with the FX series before the Wraith was rated for 125 watts in its specs. The Wraith is also rated for 125 watts, so it must be no improvement because TDP









Its not useless no, but its hard to compare from one company to another I believe. Didnt the Ryzen presentation show the 6900x using something like 3 watts more then the Ryzen system they had in the same workload ?Im sure it did but can find it very easily, and correct me if im wrong but that would be a 95 watt tdp chip using the same as a 140 watt tdp chip from another company.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> What if, AMD is defining its power consumption under a 'normal load' and when AVX2 instructions for example are used power consumption is way higher.


That is essentially how Intel's 140 W TDP works for the enthusiast chips, so it wouldn't hurt AMD to follow.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> My lay opinion tends to agree with yours on that one.
> Yea Im not trying to rag on Zen, things look great so far and Im excited for the release myself.
> They whack TDPS on heatsinks sometimes too, iirc the one that came with the FX series before the Wraith was rated for 125 watts in its specs. The Wraith is also rated for 125 watts, so it must be no improvement because TDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not useless no, but its hard to compare from one company to another I believe. Didnt the Ryzen presentation show the 6900x using something like 3 watts more then the Ryzen system they had in the same workload ?Im sure it did but can find it very easily, and correct me if im wrong but that would be a 95 watt tdp chip using the same as a 140 watt tdp chip from another company.


It still can use upwards of 136w. Which is the point.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> That is essentially how Intel's 140 W TDP works for the enthusiast chips, so it wouldn't hurt AMD to follow.


Exactly that. Its just that a lot of people are getting carried away with the fact that they announced a TDP of 95 watts assuming that it directly relates to power consumption, when it might not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> It still can use upwards of 136w. Which is the point.


So might the Ryzen chip under the same workload. Or, XFR/Turbo might for example cause it to throttle under full workloads to maintain that low TDP affecting its performance in those cases. We wont know for a few days yet.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Exactly that. Its just that a lot of people are getting carried away with the fact that they announced a TDP of 95 watts assuming that it directly relates to power consumption, when it might not.
> So might the Ryzen chip under the same workload. Or, XFR/Turbo might for example cause it to throttle under full workloads to maintain that low TDP affecting its performance in those cases. We wont know for a few days yet.


You don't know that could, should would doesn't work here, plus the heatsink's data sheet shows XFR is within the 95w TDP. Why are people mad that AMD has lower TDP this round? Intel will get better next time. Chill out.

You have the audacity to claim a 140w chip doesnt use 140w, but claim a 95w chip might use 140w.

Makes sense...


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> You don't know that could, should would doesn't work here, plus the heatsink's data sheet shows XFR is within the 95w TDP. Why are people mad that AMD has lower TDP this round? Intel will get better next time. Chill out.
> 
> You have the audacity to claim a 140w chip doesnt use 140w, but claim a 95w chip might use 140w.
> 
> Makes sense...


Sure buddy. Have a nice day now.


----------



## JackCY

The TDP ratings between Intel and AMD aren't comparable, they are made by them with their own specifications, the test methods differ. TDP is used as guideline for cooling solutions and motherboard VRM support. You're no longer putting Intel and AMD CPUs into the same mobos and for cooling... well they don't care or they use their own power rating if any.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> The TDP ratings between Intel and AMD aren't comparable, they are made by them with their own specifications, the test methods differ. TDP is used as guideline for cooling solutions and motherboard VRM support. You're no longer putting Intel and AMD CPUs into the same mobos and for cooling... well they don't care or they use their own power rating if any.


Correct. *TDP does not specify the consumption of the processor*, but the cooler's capacity to dissipate heat away from the chip/surface it cools. Although it provides a rough estimate about the power draw of the processor, *it doesn't necessarily mean so*. Intel and AMD have different actual definitions as to TDP.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Multiple people have told him that over more then one thread. I didnt feel like reiterating it would make a difference.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Multiple people have told him that over more then one thread. I didnt feel like reiterating it would make a difference.


And there is no heat without the power being used. Facts

I have already said the power consumption depends on software being used. You are trying to discredit AMD's efficiency, I am not joining in on that.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> And there is no heat without the power being used. Facts
> 
> I have already said the power consumption depends on software being used. You are trying to discredit AMD's efficiency, I am not joining in on that.


No one is trying to discredit their efficiency. People are trying to explain that even though the AMD chip has a 95W TDP and the Intel chip a 140W TDP, under identical loads they will likely use similar amounts of power (as they did in AMD's own demo), irrespective of the nominal TDP value. The differences will show up in edge cases, where specific instruction sets are used which may yield significant power differences (and likely performance differences as well).

Edit: Just because AMD's TDP is 95W doesn't mean it'll never use more than 95W, same as 140W for Intel doesn't mean it'll never use more than that (or less).


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> No one is trying to discredit their efficiency. People are trying to explain that even though the AMD chip has a 95W TDP and the Intel chip a 140W TDP, under identical loads they will likely use similar amounts of power (as they did in AMD's own demo), irrespective of the nominal TDP value. The differences will show up in edge cases, where specific instruction sets are used which may yield significant power differences (and likely performance differences as well).
> 
> Edit: Just because AMD's TDP is 95W doesn't mean it'll never use more than 95W, same as 140W for Intel doesn't mean it'll never use more than that (or less).


I'll wait for the reviews to see the power consumption values. As of right now I'll go with 95w AMD stated in the Ryzen event. Ryzen 1800x is a 95w chip


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I'll wait for the reviews to see the power consumption values. As of right now I'll go with 95w AMD stated in the Ryzen event. Ryzen 1800x is a 95w chip


It's definitely a 95W *TDP* chip, no argument there. But just so you're prepared, remember that AMD themselves say "TDP is not the maximum power of the processor.".


----------



## hokk

Really makes you think huh?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Exactly that. Its just that a lot of people are getting carried away with the fact that they announced a TDP of 95 watts assuming that it directly relates to power consumption, when it might not.


I understand.

If we go by CPC's review, Zen's average power consumption is 93 watts versus Broadwell-E's 95 watts. There were no AVX2 tests in that run.

It's safe to assume power consumption is greater than 95 watts for both of them under AVX workloads. Intel covers this with its 140 W TDP, but AMD has decided not to.

AM4 supports 140 W processors though, so it really was in the best interests of AMD to follow suit and provide higher clocked parts.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Come on March! I need Ryzen to come out so bad.. So I can get an 8 core i7 for a better price next year!!!!

































:::takes cover:::

...JK just so tired of the wait.. Ughhh come on.

Edit: Speaking of which, I think it's about time for Intel to drop the i3 / i5 / i7 convention, just in time to part ways with the 3, 5, 7 AMD is now adopting. Need more confusion!!!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Come on March! I need Ryzen to come out so bad.. So I can get an 8 core i7 for a better price next year!!!!










I've already parted out my X79 system. I'm stuck on my i3 until launch which, even if it were this week, cannot come soon enough.










I feel that those like myself who are still on SB-e and SB (along with our Thuban/Deneb and Zambezi/Vishera friends) are fortunate in that it looks as though we're virtually assured of a nice upgrade with Ryzen. If it somehow crashes and burns, which I doubt, then eh! I'll just pop a locked i7 into this z170 setup and wait for Skylake-X.


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> 
> 
> Really makes you think huh?


That graph doesn't make sense to me. Where did they get the data from?

Sandy- 134.73
Ivy- 140
Haswell- 144.62
Broadwell- 162.16 (??? Broadwell wasn't this significant of an IPC bump?)
Skylake- 171.43
Kaby Lake- 177 (??? Kaby Lake has 100% identical IPC to Skylake.)


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> That graph doesn't make sense to me. Where did they get the data from?
> 
> Sandy- 134.73
> Ivy- 140
> Haswell- 144.62
> Broadwell- 162.16 (??? Broadwell wasn't this significant of an IPC bump?)
> Skylake- 171.43
> Kaby Lake- 177 (??? Kaby Lake has 100% identical IPC to Skylake.)


Higher stock clock speeds?


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already parted out my X79 system. I'm stuck on my i3 until launch which, even if it were this week, cannot come soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that those like myself who are still on SB-e and SB (along with our Thuban/Deneb and Zambezi/Vishera friends) are fortunate in that it looks as though we're virtually assured of a nice upgrade with Ryzen. If it somehow crashes and burns, which I doubt, then eh! I'll just pop a locked i7 into this z170 setup and wait for Skylake-X.


That's actually very true. I'm apprehensive since nothing is really much of an upgrade from Devil's Canyon, and I expect a 4 core Zen to be about the same or only modestly ahead, no way anything is going to pull way out ahead in single core these days. But If I could double the cores and still have Haswell level IPC and OC it to 4.4-4.5 Ghz with a sub $500 CPU, mmmmmm... Especially since I work in VMs daily, I was considering getting a used 8 core xeon. Trigger finger is itching either way.

On the other hand, 3770k and beyond prices on ebay are liable to start dropping now, I could flip the 4790k for practically what I paid for it right now, hopefully it doesn't come down too much since I'd need to sell to upgrade


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I understand.
> 
> If we go by CPC's review, Zen's average power consumption is 93 watts versus Broadwell-E's 95 watts. There were no AVX2 tests in that run.
> 
> It's safe to assume power consumption is greater than 95 watts for both of them under AVX workloads. Intel covers this with its 140 W TDP, but AMD has decided not to.
> 
> AM4 supports 140 W processors though, so it really was in the best interests of AMD to follow suit and provide higher clocked parts.


I just want to add something onto this. AMD very likely doesn't include power consumption under AVX2 because not many programs actually use it. Therefore, you can assume that a typical power consumption figure be obtained from a workload lacking AVX2 instructions.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Edit: Speaking of which, I think it's about time for Intel to drop the i3 / i5 / i7 convention, just in time to part ways with the 3, 5, 7 AMD is now adopting. Need more confusion!!!


I was actually hoping for the original Ryzen SR× nomenclature. For exanple, Ryzen SR7, with a simple two or three digit number following. I really dislike the model naming. "Ryzen 7-1800X" is more of a mouthful than _Ryzen SR7-80_, with Zen+ subsequently following with a 100 series. Or, Ryzen could _start_ with a 100 series. The extra number seems pointless to me.

Alternatively, they could have used the naming scheme that is used for G-Series and R-Series processors, whereby the clock speed becomes part of the model number, and then used two or three modifiers (only make them understandable!).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> That graph doesn't make sense to me. Where did they get the data from?
> 
> Sandy- 134.73
> Ivy- 140
> Haswell- 144.62
> Broadwell- 162.16 (??? Broadwell wasn't this significant of an IPC bump?)
> Skylake- 171.43
> Kaby Lake- 177 (??? Kaby Lake has 100% identical IPC to Skylake.)


Indeed, it doesn't. However, the difference the graph shows between Skylake and Kaby Lake is 3%, which could be within margin of error. They *should* be identical. But then, there is no mention of base clock settings to achieve 4.00 GHz.

And I measured a 4.99% increase going from Haswell to Broadwell in Cinebench R15. The difference in IPC is slightly above Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Higher stock clock speeds?


No because all chips were clocked (and locked) at 4.00 GHz for the test. In any test for IPC, Kaby Lake is identical to Skylake.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Sooo...

Just another couple of weeks before the OCN marketplace gets a lot of Sandybridge parts listed.


----------



## IvantheDugtrio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Sooo...
> 
> Just another couple of weeks before the OCN marketplace gets a lot of Sandybridge parts listed.


Ryzen still won't replace my Xeon E5-2680. Dat quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IvantheDugtrio*
> 
> Ryzen still won't replace my Xeon E5-2680. Dat quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes.


But what about your locked multiplier?


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> But what about your locked multiplier?


What about it? If he does not need/want unlocked multi he does not. Depends on how the machine is used. And Ryzen does not need to be some kind of magic fairy-dust so that everyone would 100% need to switch over to that. For example, 40 PCIe lanes he mentioned might (or might not) to be essential in his setup and Ryzen is just not competing at all in that category.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Higher stock clock speeds?


The graph is supposedly [email protected] I think. So yeah, It doesn't quite make sense.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> But what about your locked multiplier?


Not everyone overclocks...


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> If we go by CPC's review, Zen's average power consumption is 93 watts versus Broadwell-E's 95 watts. There were no AVX2 tests in that run.
> 
> It's safe to assume power consumption is greater than 95 watts for both of them under AVX workloads. Intel covers this with its 140 W TDP, but AMD has decided not to.
> 
> AM4 supports 140 W processors though, so it really was in the best interests of AMD to follow suit and provide higher clocked parts.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> I just want to add something onto this. AMD very likely doesn't include power consumption under AVX2 because not many programs actually use it. Therefore, you can assume that a typical power consumption figure be obtained from a workload lacking AVX2 instructions.


That's partly what Im thinking yup. I also seem to remember reading The Stilt I think saying/hinting that Zen shines in non AVX stuff but isnt so good with it enabled. I was just wondering whether that could mean that the chips are designed to throttle under such workloads to stay within the power envelope. Maybe if XFR was disabled and it was overclocked manually you could avoid this as long as you had sufficient cooling.

I'm no expert in microprocessor design at all, so I've probably missed something. The only question for me is do I get a 6 or 8 core, I don't need 8/16 for what I do but I'm also impatient if I have to wait too long for the 6 cores to come out.


----------



## Cibic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I don't really know why people expected different. Single core performance is still the biggest factor that determines how well a CPU performs in games.


I would argue that if application/game supports more cores then single core performance is not the biggest factor. What you say is true however for the 4-6 core CPU bag.


----------



## OutlawII

Where is this list of games that uses more than 4 cores?


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Where is this list of games that uses more than 4 cores?


There's countless. 4 cores 8 threads is getting close to 2C/4T in 2014/15 i.e inadequate for gaming, let alone everyday computer tasks.


----------



## OutlawII

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> There's countless. 4 cores 8 threads is getting close to 2C/4T in 2014/15 i.e inadequate for gaming, let alone everyday computer tasks.


Is there a list?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Where is this list of games that uses more than 4 cores?


Crysis 3, bf4, gears of war, gears of war 4, doom, bf1, resident evil 5, resident evil 6, resident evil 7, the division, watch dogs 2.

Does that help? Those games use 6 to 16 threads


----------



## willibj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Crysis 3, bf4, gears of war, gears of war 4, doom, bf1, resident evil 5, resident evil 6, resident evil 7, the division, watch dogs 2.
> 
> Does that help? Those games use 6 to 16 threads


GTA V, Civilization V and VI, Assassin's Creed (latest 2 at least), The Witcher 3 ... plus because of Frostbyte it's reasonable to assume Mass Effect Andromeda will too.

Do we count Ashes of the Singularity? Does anyone actually play it, or just bench on it?


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> There's countless. 4 cores 8 threads is getting close to 2C/4T in 2014/15 i.e inadequate for gaming, let alone everyday computer tasks.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a list?
Click to expand...

This might interest you

http://www.overclock.net/t/1591786/just-in-case-you-thought-more-than-4-cores-wasnt-helpful-for-gaming


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> There is no advantage to be gained from running an all AMD system, so I really don't see what benefit you think there will be in a "gaming ecosystem". People have mix/matched Intel/AMD/Nvidia for years and I don't see any reason why that would change going forward. Having a competitive product at an attractive price is what is going to get people to buy a Ryzen CPU, not some perceived platform synergy.
> 
> As for 2017 being the year of DX12, that's what people were saying about 2016 this time last year (and about Mantle the year before that).


It seems about the right amount of development time for all the projects to come together. Vega would have been developed along side the development of Mantle (as was Zen). An upgradable AM4 platform with Ryzen and Vega sounds awfuly tasty.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> That's partly what Im thinking yup. I also seem to remember reading The Stilt I think saying/hinting that Zen shines in non AVX stuff but isnt so good with it enabled. I was just wondering whether that could mean that the chips are designed to throttle under such workloads to stay within the power envelope. Maybe if XFR was disabled and it was overclocked manually you could avoid this as long as you had sufficient cooling.
> 
> I'm no expert in microprocessor design at all, so I've probably missed something. The only question for me is do I get a 6 or 8 core, I don't need 8/16 for what I do but I'm also impatient if I have to wait too long for the 6 cores to come out.


Zen shouldn't be _too_ bad in AVX2 workloads. I'd put it above Ivy Bridge easily thanks to the higher clocks and better architecture. It will be below those Intel architectures with dedicated 256-bit registers though, which is essentially any architecture since Haswell. That being said, with what AVX2 workloads have been included thus far in leaks, Ryzen doesn't appear 50% slower.

XFR I had thought would apply to all cores, but it appears that it might be a single-core feature. Still no real benchmarks showing it off though. AMD wants to keep it wrapped up for now.

Personally, I will be looking at the hexa-core with XFR, unless the quad-core parts get better clocks down the road. It will be something I stick with for a good 3-4 years as my line of work doesn't require the absolute best of the best, with annual upgrades. After a certain threshold, additional performance is meaningless.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Where is this list of games that uses more than 4 cores?


Some of the popular games that I know of, are Battlefield 1 and 4, Grand Theft Auto V, Ashes of the Singularity, DOOM, Watch_Dogs 2, Assassin's Creed Unity, Assassin's Creed Syndicate and The Witcher 3.

Unreal, Frostbite and RAGE game engines can all utilize more than four cores, if necessary (which is becoming more and more common).


----------



## cjwilson

Incidentally, I wanted to post this for you all to enjoy (or begrudge if you just bought a 6900K







)

*Ryzen 7 1700X Cinebench scores leaked:* https://videocardz.com/66182/amd-radeon-7-1700x-pictured-and-tested

*Cinebench R15 multi-thread comparison between 80 results:* https://cpugrade.com/a/i/articles/ryzen-cbr15.png

Here is my analysis below.

*Hint:* my single-thread prediction is close to being reality.











Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



SMT gains are roughly 35.5%, which is greater than Haswell (26.6%), Broadwell (33.6%) and Skylake (32.5%).

DDR4-3400 memory is compatible with the IMC, and memory bandwidth efficiency is extremely good at 97.7%, which is better than Skylake/Kaby Lake in dual-channel (89.5%).

In summary, everything about Ryzen is solid.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen shouldn't be _too_ bad in AVX2 workloads. I'd put it above Ivy Bridge easily thanks to the higher clocks and better architecture. It will be below those Intel architectures with dedicated 256-bit registers though, which is essentially any architecture since Haswell. That being said, with what AVX2 workloads have been included thus far in leaks, Ryzen doesn't appear 50% slower.
> 
> XFR I had thought would apply to all cores, but it appears that it might be a single-core feature. Still no real benchmarks showing it off though. AMD wants to keep it wrapped up for now.
> 
> Personally, I will be looking at the hexa-core with XFR, unless the quad-core parts get better clocks down the road. It will be something I stick with for a good 3-4 years as my line of work doesn't require the absolute best of the best, with annual upgrades. After a certain threshold, additional performance is meaningless.


I wasnt meaning to suggest it would be awful. Just that it might be one area where it wasn't quite as good. Mainly because as you said I had read somewhere about it combining 128 bit registers instead of having a dedicated 256 bit for AVX 2 instructions, although I'm not au fais with exactly how that works.

As I understand it, when you try to work out Zens IPC from Cinebench, or whatever the last leak was, it all looks promising. But if the performance of the chip is dependent on workload we probably have something on hand that can sometimes match or beat Skylake per core and in other areas might be around Sandy Bridge. That may include it performing better in some games then Intel alternatives and a bit worse in others, or not? ( of course if the game really NEEDS more cores I know that will probably favor Zen over the current Intel price alternatives, if the pricing leaks are close)

That would be just fine for me, I'm mainly interested in gaming and although contrary to a lot of the hyperbole we hear around sometimes my Ivy I5 is still ok for me at 2560x1440 60hz ultra settings in anything I've played. Doom was no problem at 60hz all the way, and The Witcher 3 with no hairworks as well that have been mentioned as examples of games that definitely _need_moar cores. I do though have an upgrade fund same as I do every year and I'd rather skip up to at least 6/12 then bump to 4/8 and see if I cant make it last longer so I can wax my future monies mainly on GPU upgrades for a few years again. Ive also been playing a lot of TW: Warhammer and Hearts of Iron 4 both of which a new GPU is certainly not going to improve my experience with the ticker set to full speed later game and in larger battles on TW.

Also I get new toys with new possibilities, never underestimate the appeal of new toys.









XFR sounds like an advanced Intel turbo that will give you a few extra mhz more dependent on the chip and your set up then the universal approach Intel have, definitely interesting as long as it allows me to mess with it and doesnt take all of the fun out of overclocking. Its a bit disappointing for me if I can only squeeze my clock speed 5% over XFR rather then getting an extra 20% or more across all cores compared to stock. That's totally psychological and I know I'm an edge case before I get jumped on.


----------



## eTheBlack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willibj*
> 
> GTA V, Civilization V and VI, Assassin's Creed (latest 2 at least), The Witcher 3 ... plus because of Frostbyte it's reasonable to assume Mass Effect Andromeda will too.
> 
> Do we count Ashes of the Singularity? Does anyone actually play it, or just bench on it?


Frostbite, not Frostbyte


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> I wasnt meaning to suggest it would be awful. Just that it might be one area where it wasn't quite as good. Mainly because as you said I had read somewhere about it combining 128 bit registers instead of having a dedicated 256 bit for AVX 2 instructions, although I'm not au fais with exactly how that works.


I know, I know. I just wanted to explain myself.









Zen will indeed have to fuse two 128-bit registers in order to complete one 256-bit instruction (AVX or otherwise). This of course introduces latencies which aren't present in Intel's design. Dedicated full-width registers are always going to be faster than fusing two half-width registers together. With that said, AMD has basically cornered 98% of software with its design, which makes it competitive, cheap to produce and cheap to sell. Exactly what the consumer needs.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> As I understand it, when you try to work out Zens IPC from Cinebench, or whatever the last leak was, it all looks promising. But if the performance of the chip is dependent on workload we probably have something on hand that can sometimes match or beat Skylake per core and in other areas might be around Sandy Bridge. That may include it performing better in some games then Intel alternatives and a bit worse in others, or not? ( of course if the game really NEEDS more cores I know that will probably favor Zen over the current Intel price alternatives, if the pricing leaks are close)


I agree with you. Ivy Bridge is still a good processor to have, even in 2017. Instead, the incentives to upgrade are not with the processor (unless you want better integrated graphics or DDR4), but the features that the motherboards of newer platforms provide. Sandy Bridge also remains one of the best overclocking platforms.

I don't see Zen falling short of Ivy Bridge, in my opinion. In fact, I'd say the worst case scenario would be slightly above said architecture. However, for 98% of the time, expect Haswell to Broadwell kind of performance.

At least all those fools who blindly accuse Cinebench of being biased can now button their mouths. Cinebench actually remains a very good benchmark for floating-point performance testing. The reason why the Bulldozer saga of chips sucked in it was because they had half as many floating-point units as the Intel core-equivalent. Nothing more, nothing less. Zen is a return to the AMD designs of 2010 and prior, and a design that also matches Intel, so Cinebench will absolutely love Zen. It's a floating-point benchmark, but it doesn't use AVX or AVX2. Therefore, both vendors are on equal footing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> XFR sounds like an advanced Intel turbo that will give you a few extra mhz more dependent on the chip and your set up then the universal approach Intel have, definitely interesting as long as it allows me to mess with it and doesnt take all of the fun out of overclocking. Its a bit disappointing for me if I can only squeeze my clock speed 5% over XFR rather then getting an extra 20% or more across all cores compared to stock. That's totally psychological and I know I'm an edge case before I get jumped on.


On air, it seems XFR can provide a good 300-400 MHz boost over the max turbo frequency. With water and liquid gas, who knows? Maybe 1.00 GHz or so. We'll have to wait for reviews for this (not long now).

Of course, one thing that XFR won't do, is fine-grain the base clock for overclocking, so the fun won't be completely gone. XFR operates the base clock in 25 MHz increments, so it's not quite as precise overclocking as the manual tradition. But, it does mean that the general consumer who knows nothing about overclocking, can get better performance without touching anything, and that's what I think AMD is going for here. This feature aims to please everyone. And Intel will need to follow up.


----------



## cssorkinman

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## cjwilson

*AMD Ryzen launched February 22, 2017 (today) ― 3 SKUs available at launch*
*X* = XFR support
*XFR applies to all threads*
*** I am assuming XFR is enabled, however it might not be.

*Ryzen 7 1800X* ― 8C/16T / 3.60-4.00 GHz / 4.10 GHz XFR / 95 W / *$499*
*Ryzen 7 1700X* ― 8C/16T / 3.40-3.80 GHz / 3.90 GHz XFR / 95 W / *$399*
*Ryzen 7 1700* ― 8C/16T / 3.00-3.70 GHz / no XFR / 65 W / *$329*

*Cinebench R15 live demo; SMT and XFR enabled* (1800X vs. 6900K):*

*AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (QS) → 1612*
16 GB RAM
Validation motherboard
AMD Radeon RX 480

*Intel Core i7-6900K → 1479*
32 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum
ASUS ROG motherboard
AMD Radeon RX 480

*Handbrake and Blender (Octane) live demo; SMT and XFR enabled (1700X vs. 6800K):*

*AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (QS) → 91.6 s*
16 GB RAM
[Unknown] motherboard
[Unknown] GPU

*Intel Core i7-6800K → 112.1 s*
32 GB RAM
[Unknown] motherboard
[Unknown] GPU

*Dota 2 streaming with OBS live demo; SMT and XFR enabled* (1700 vs. 7700K):*

The Ryzen chip didn't drop frames, while the Core i7 chip did.

*AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (QS) → 93-94 fps*
*Intel Core i7-7700K → 87-88 fps*


----------



## dieanotherday

is it too late to buy stocks?

cuz this is starting to look better than kaby lake.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> is it too late to buy stocks?
> 
> cuz this is starting to look better than kaby lake.


Better CPU? Or better investment?


----------



## rhys216

http://image.prntscr.com/image/3f02af71b7bc4a889017ab4dfd802650.png


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rhys216*
> 
> http://image.prntscr.com/image/3f02af71b7bc4a889017ab4dfd802650.png


what is it?


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rhys216*
> 
> http://image.prntscr.com/image/3f02af71b7bc4a889017ab4dfd802650.png


Did that... did that say 16C/16T?


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rhys216*
> 
> http://image.prntscr.com/image/3f02af71b7bc4a889017ab4dfd802650.png


Would be funny if that what the X is for on some models. They can turn into behemoths


----------



## NightAntilli

The X likely means whether it supports XFR or not.


----------



## cssorkinman

I think you may have just witnessed the death of the i 7 quad.


----------



## f1LL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> The X likely means whether it supports XFR or not.


No. Volker earlier in this thread stated that X does not stand for XFR. And going by his first post on the page I linked, the 1700 will have XFR of +50MHz. At least that is how interpret his post. And Linus stated that 1700X and 1800X will have XRF of +100MHz.

Let me translate his post on page 22:
Quote:


> Doch es gibt 25-MHz-Schritte. Aber der Impact ist halt irgendwie nahezu irrelevant.Vor allem beim 1700 .. 50 MHz in 25-MHz-Schritten .. das kann man nichtmal richtig messen geschweige denn spüren. Am Ende ist es schon mit dem kleinsten Kühler einfach Standard Turbo für X Kerne und alle Kerne fest definiert, dann dazu der Rest on Top. XFR ist im Vorfeld krass overhyped worden, der Nutzen in der Praxis wird quasi gen Null sein.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> There will be 25MHz steps. But the impact will be close to irrelevant. Especially with the 1700 .. 50MHz in 25MHz steps .. that can not really be measured, let alone be felt. In the end it is, even with the smallest cooler, just a standard turbo boost pre-defined for x cores and all cores. The rest (XFR) is just on top of that. XFR has been heavily overhyped beforehand. The actual benefit of XFR will be close to zero.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> The X likely means whether it supports XFR or not.


Nope, and I don't know why people continually repeat this.

XFR will be basically useless according to the test guy over at computerbase.de.


----------



## vallonen

Looks like AMD has finally gained traction on the CPU front again, that's great.

Perhaps my new system this spring should be an AMD / ATI build this time around.


----------



## OutlawII

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> *AMD Ryzen launched February 22, 2017 (today) ― 3 SKUs available at launch*
> *X* = XFR support
> *XFR applies to all threads*
> *** I am assuming XFR is enabled, however it might not be.
> 
> *Ryzen 7 1800X* ― 8C/16T / 3.60-4.00 GHz / 4.10 GHz XFR / 95 W / *$499*
> *Ryzen 7 1700X* ― 8C/16T / 3.40-3.80 GHz / 3.90 GHz XFR / 95 W / *$399*
> *Ryzen 7 1700* ― 8C/16T / 3.00-3.70 GHz / no XFR / 65 W / *$329*
> 
> *Cinebench R15 live demo; SMT and XFR enabled* (1800X vs. 6900K):*
> 
> *AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (QS) → 1612*
> 16 GB RAM
> Validation motherboard
> AMD Radeon RX 480
> 
> *Intel Core i7-6900K → 1479*
> 32 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum
> ASUS ROG motherboard
> AMD Radeon RX 480
> 
> *Handbrake and Blender (Octane) live demo; SMT and XFR enabled (1700X vs. 6800K):*
> 
> *AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (QS) → 91.6 s*
> 16 GB RAM
> [Unknown] motherboard
> [Unknown] GPU
> 
> *Intel Core i7-6800K → 112.1 s*
> 32 GB RAM
> [Unknown] motherboard
> [Unknown] GPU
> 
> *Dota 2 streaming with OBS live demo; SMT and XFR enabled* (1700 vs. 7700K):*
> 
> The Ryzen chip didn't drop frames, while the Core i7 chip did.
> 
> *AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (QS) → 93-94 fps*
> *Intel Core i7-7700K → 87-88 fps*


Looks like Ryzen dropped a frame too ooooooooooo


----------



## 7850K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vallonen*
> 
> Perhaps my new system this spring should be an AMD / *ATI* build this time around.


are you really that many years behind on amd/ati news?


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Looks like Ryzen dropped a frame too ooooooooooo


"I think" he was saying that the video stream showing live looked like it was having pauses on the Intel machine while it was smooth on the AMD rig. You can see it when he land the camera showing them.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Better CPU? Or better investment?


amd has been on track ever since lisa su came onboard.
let them have 3 more years and zen+ and the next graphics might be a world leader in both arenas.


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rhys216*
> 
> http://image.prntscr.com/image/3f02af71b7bc4a889017ab4dfd802650.png


We have a new engineering sample number!

ZD3603A2M88F3

There are also F3 and F4 Ryzen samples in this benchmark list. The F4 samples match up with the expected clock speed of the R7 1800X, so the F3 sample could be the same chip, but it just doesn't have its clock speed read correctly.


----------



## hokk

Uhh...Intel stop it now :/


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh...Intel stop it now :/


Good thing sites like OCN and hwbot exist. Raw, hard cold numbers with no "middle man". If that ends up being the case.


----------



## vallonen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7850K*
> 
> are you really that many years behind on amd/ati news?


I believe they merged, and that ATI brought the know-how in graphics. Thus AMD / ATI.

I'm old school.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Good thing sites like OCN and hwbot exist. Raw, hard cold numbers with no "middle man". If that ends up being the case.


Last Intel cpu has a bug thread I saw here was unbumpable. So they have their claws everywhere.


----------



## artemis2307

I heard the memory controller on AM4 is still garbage


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> I heard the memory controller on AM4 is still garbage


That would be pretty damn amazing to see AM4 motherboards with garbage memory controllers, considering RyZen uses an IMC just like Intel.

(Controller is on the processor package and not the motherboard)

EDIT:

AMD has stated it will support DDR4 3200 with AMP profiles right out of the box, and upwards of 4000 Mhz with manual OC.

Although 3rd party results should truly root out the answer. Just a few more days!


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> That would be pretty damn amazing to see AM4 motherboards with garbage memory controllers, considering RyZen uses an IMC just like Intel.
> 
> (Controller is on the processor package and not the motherboard)
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> AMD has stated it will support DDR4 3200 with AMP profiles right out of the box, and upwards of 4000 Mhz with manual OC.
> 
> Although 3rd party results should truly root out the answer. Just a few more days!


Where did you see AMD reporting 4000Mhz with a manual OC?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> what is it?


Could probably be a dual-socket motherboard with SMT disabled.

Also, did you guys miss the Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4.66 GHz, scoring 2,325?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> The X likely means whether it supports XFR or not.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f1LL*
> 
> No. Volker earlier in this thread stated that X does not stand for XFR. And going by his first post on the page I linked, the 1700 will have XFR of +50MHz. At least that is how interpret his post. And Linus stated that 1700X and 1800X will have XRF of +100MHz.


XFR is only available on models with the X suffix. But the X is also an indicator with current part numbers that no cooler is supplied with the CPU. The 1700 doesn't have XFR.

The X suffix is also for something currently being kept in the dark, so you'll need to wait for reviews to find out what it is.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steadly2004*
> 
> "I think" he was saying that the video stream showing live looked like it was having pauses on the Intel machine while it was smooth on the AMD rig. You can see it when he land the camera showing them.


Yes. The AMD footage is butter-silky-smooth.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> I heard the memory controller on AM4 is still garbage


It supports up to DDR4-3600, at least on one Biostar motherboard, and DDR4-4000 with another MSI board. Officially, the IMC is rated for DDR4-2666.

Also, the memory bandwidth efficiency is better than Intel's Skylake and Kaby Lake in dual-channel, as I previous mentioned (in spoiler tags). So, it's not really garbage.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Where did you see AMD reporting 4000Mhz with a manual OC?


http://wccftech.com/msi-am4-x370-motherboard-ryzen-cpu/


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Could probably be a dual-socket motherboard with SMT disabled.
> 
> It supports up to DDR4-3600, at least on one Biostar motherboard, and DDR4-4000 with another MSI board. Officially, the IMC is rated for DDR4-2666.
> 
> Also, the memory bandwidth efficiency is better than Intel's Skylake and Kaby Lake in dual-channel, as I previous mentioned (in spoiler tags). So, it's not really garbage.
> /


speed is one thing
real life use and benchmark is another
both of my haswell and AM3 system have 1600mhz 7-7-7-19 DDR3 and the AM3 bench much slower


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> I think you may have just witnessed the death of the i 7 quad.


Or the demise of i5 4C/4T. I guess intel will give HT to all i5s and keep their price the same, in order to protect the value of i5 and i7 brand.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Or the demise of i5 4C/4T. I guess intel will give HT to all i5s and keep their price the same, in order to protect the value of i5 and i7 brand.


You're saying exactly what I predicted some time ago myself. i5 is going to become the new 4c/8t CPU at the least. With AMDs low end offering going neck and neck with an i7, it's time for SMT to just be an expectation rather than a $100 bonus option.

Personally I think at this point it should be i3 4c/8t, i5 6c/12t, i7 8 or 10c / 16 or 20t. Leave the 2c/4t to the pentiums.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> speed is one thing
> real life use and benchmark is another
> both of my haswell and AM3 system have 1600mhz 7-7-7-19 DDR3 and the AM3 bench much slower


Yeah, but personally I don't find very fast system memory appealing anyway. DDR4-2666 is more than enough. The only time that it will make much sense is for Raven Ridge.

*Edit:*
Ryzen 7 1800X overclocked to 5.20 GHz on LN2; scores 2,449 in Cinebench R15, breaking previous record

*That voltage though...*


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> amd has been on track ever since lisa su came onboard.
> let them have 3 more years and zen+ and the next graphics might be a world leader in both arenas.


I see your point and agree. Lisa Su's leadership in the past few years has been nothing short of impressive.


----------



## OutlawII

1.875 for 5.2 oc potential doesnt look so good


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> 1.875 for 5.2 oc potential doesnt look so good


It was benchmark stable and all cores were enabled.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Or the demise of i5 4C/4T. I guess intel will give HT to all i5s and keep their price the same, in order to protect the value of i5 and i7 brand.


It's about time though. Quad cores are 2007 (Intel Core 2 Q6600 was $266 in 2007 http://www.anandtech.com/show/2303) and we had affordable sub $300 hexcores since 2010 (Phenom II x6) introduced to compete with Intel's 4c/8t . When the i7-980 in 2011 at 6c/12t doesn't cost much more than what a i7-6800k does in 2017 it really suggests we haven't had _true_ competition for a while.

Should be for desktops:
i7 - 6 core or more + SMT (salvaged from workstation parts)
i5 - 4c / 8t (salvaged from quad core mobile i7 parts that can't stay in the 35-45W TDP)
i3 - 4c / 4t (salvaged from quad core mobile i5 parts that can't stay in the 35-45W TDP)
Pentium - 2c / 4t (salvaged from dual core mobile i3/i5 parts that can't stay in the 15-25W TDP)

i3-7350K was a pure milking of customers. It is too late for a 2c/4t in 2017.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> It was benchmark stable and all cores were enabled.


It's right up there with the 6900K on overclocking potential too. Ryzen couldn't be looking any better, unless, you know, I was 'handed' a free chip to review.


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> It supports up to DDR4-3600, at least on one Biostar motherboard, and DDR4-4000 with another MSI board. Officially, the IMC is rated for DDR4-2666.


*That might not be true: *OCN Post [DVHardware]

We are getting reports that it does not support DDR4-3600. If using 4 sticks some are saying you are limited to much lower. see the OCN post linked above.

Quote:


> AMD reportedly focused all its efforts on improving CPU performance and put DDR4 support on the backburner. Motherboard maker ASUS reports you can use DDR4 with a frequency of up to *3200MHz *if you populate just two DIMMS on a motherboard, but if you want to use all four DIMMs you can't clock the memory higher than *2400MHz*.
> 
> This issue is expected to be resolved via a BIOS microcode update, the ETA for this is 1-2 months.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> That graph doesn't make sense to me. Where did they get the data from?
> 
> Sandy- 134.73
> Ivy- 140
> Haswell- 144.62
> Broadwell- 162.16 (??? Broadwell wasn't this significant of an IPC bump?)
> Skylake- 171.43
> Kaby Lake- 177 (??? Kaby Lake has 100% identical IPC to Skylake.)


You got it wrong.

HW/DC - 162.16
BW - 171.43
SL/KL - 177

At least my DC does 164 at 4.0GHz and it's 2014.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Just did 168cb on my 2600K at 4.7GHz. 1.512V though!


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Just did 168cb on my 2600K at 4.7GHz. 1.512V though!


Is that the newest Cinebench? I got a 194 on my 4.8 GHz 4790K - didn't think Haswell was that much of a bump over Sandy.


----------



## ChronoBodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Is that the newest Cinebench? I got a 194 on my 4.8 GHz 4790K - didn't think Haswell was that much of a bump over Sandy.


Haswell was one of the bigger bumps in IPC relatively speaking. Especially for emulation so i heard.

Skylake according to Anandtech IPC testing, went like this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9

Initially SB was that big IPC bump from Nehalem, then Haswell provided a smaller but still decentish IPC bump. Skylake hasn't had the same effect. Yes there is better IPC in the Lakes, but not that big compared to Haswell and Sandy Bridge.


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Is that the newest Cinebench? I got a 194 on my 4.8 GHz 4790K - didn't think Haswell was that much of a bump over Sandy.


the only 2 big jump in IPC in the last decade are SandyBridge and Haswell


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Just did 168cb on my 2600K at 4.7GHz. 1.512V though!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the newest Cinebench? I got a 194 on my 4.8 GHz 4790K - didn't think Haswell was that much of a bump over Sandy.
Click to expand...

R15 is good to the 4790k for some reason - I don't think most benches see that much difference compared to SB iirc , been a while since I've played with my i 7's


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Just did 168cb on my 2600K at 4.7GHz. 1.512V though!


My 3930k is basically a 4.5ghz 2600k right now without the HT (HT disabled with 4 cores active) so a 2500k basically. Dont ask why








Got 158 on the run I did.

Wonder what a 7700k(or i5 kaby) @ 5ghz+ with good mem does in single core to see how far Sandy has fallen


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Just did 168cb on my 2600K at 4.7GHz. 1.512V though!


Yes yes! Now that's how you rock a 2600k! But who was temps?


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> *That might not be true: *OCN Post [DVHardware]
> 
> We are getting reports that it does not support DDR4-3600. If using 4 sticks some are saying you are limited to much lower. see the OCN post linked above.


Indeed, I had not watched The WAN Show when I posted that. I'm not fussed about the issue really. It'll be fixed, but it does mirror what happened with Phenom IMCs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> You got it wrong.
> 
> HW/DC - 162.16
> BW - 171.43
> SL/KL - 177
> 
> At least my DC does 164 at 4.0GHz and it's 2014.


You're correct. But that doesn't explain 2014 for Intel, or 2013 and 2016 for AMD.

Of course, they represent Haswell Refresh, Steamroller and Excavator, respectively. But that's not what I'm getting at. Haswell Refresh is exactly the same as 2013 Haswell, Steamroller was released in 2014, and Excavator was released in 2015.


----------



## cjwilson

Guys, the Ryzen 5 1600X is confirmed to be a 6C/12T processor with 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. Likely a 4.10 GHz XFR boost too. TDP is 95 watts.

Basically, the top tier models of each segment seem to be 3.60-4.00 GHz. So it might be safe to assume the Ryzen 5 1400X and Ryzen 3 1200X are too.

Also, I can't help but feel that AMD's 'promise' of "3.40 GHz+" was somewhat not _entirely_ true.

Perhaps AMD was only referring to top-tier products, but that's somewhat misleading from the slide they gave. It reads as though _all_ 8C/16T parts are clocked as such. The 1700 says otherwise. Its all-core turbo is 3.40 GHz though, so eh...


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Guys, the Ryzen 5 1600X is confirmed to be a 6C/12T processor with 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. Likely a 4.10 GHz XFR boost too. TDP is 95 watts.
> 
> Basically, the top tier models of each segment seem to be 3.60-4.00 GHz. So it might be safe to assume the Ryzen 5 1400X and Ryzen 3 1200X are too.
> 
> Also, I can't help but feel that AMD's 'promise' of "3.40 GHz+" was somewhat not _entirely_ true.
> 
> Perhaps AMD was only referring to top-tier products, but that's somewhat misleading from the slide they gave. It reads as though _all_ 8C/16T parts are clocked as such. The 1700 says otherwise. Its all-core turbo is 3.40 GHz though, so eh...


Hmm the missing cores must still be there with the l3 using up all that power


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Guys, the Ryzen 5 1600X is confirmed to be a 6C/12T processor with 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. Likely a 4.10 GHz XFR boost too. TDP is 95 watts.
> 
> Basically, the top tier models of each segment seem to be 3.60-4.00 GHz. So it might be safe to assume the Ryzen 5 1400X and Ryzen 3 1200X are too.
> 
> Also, I can't help but feel that AMD's 'promise' of "3.40 GHz+" was somewhat not _entirely_ true.
> 
> Perhaps AMD was only referring to top-tier products, but that's somewhat misleading from the slide they gave. It reads as though _all_ 8C/16T parts are clocked as such. The 1700 says otherwise. Its all-core turbo is 3.40 GHz though, so eh...


Well X stand also for performance and 3.4GHz+ is on 1700X/1800X.

Something that people wont even talk about is RYZEN IPC with SMT included. Basically Ryzen has best SMT scaling which makes him best CPU clock per clock 1C/2T. Kabylake has mirror advantage in ST, but it looses in SMT big time.

You could say that *4C/8T 4.3GHz Ryzen will be faster than 4.5GHz kaby lake in many MT benchmarks* (Well I was looking at impressive Ryzen @5.2GHz CBR15 - world record - when it was as fast as broadwel E at 5.9-6GHz = 5.5GHz Kabylake).

Since i7 7700K is clocked at 4.2GHz/4.5GHz, AMD might need around only 4/4.2GHz for all cores to match it.
If AMD releases 4C ryzen with high clock it might actually kill i7 7700K (prices). After few months i7 7700K might cost around 220$.


----------



## Diogenes5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Well X stand also for performance and 3.4GHz+ is on 1700X/1800X.
> 
> Something that people wont even talk about is RYZEN IPC with SMT included. Basically Ryzen has best SMT scaling which makes him best CPU clock per clock 1C/2T. Kabylake has mirror advantage in ST, but it looses in SMT big time.
> 
> You could say that *4C/8T 4.3GHz Ryzen will be faster than 4.5GHz kaby lake in many MT benchmarks* (Well I was looking at impressive Ryzen @5.2GHz CBR15 - world record - when it was as fast as broadwel E at 5.9-6GHz = 5.5GHz Kabylake).
> 
> Since i7 7700K is clocked at 4.2GHz/4.5GHz, AMD might need around only 4/4.2GHz for all cores to match it.
> If AMD releases 4C ryzen with high clock it might actually kill i7 7700K (prices). After few months i7 7700K might cost around 220$.


Gonna need a real source on the whole SMT thing which is impossible right now because of NDA so ... I'm going to have to call bull until the benchmarks come out.

You are right the price of the 7700k is dead. There will be no more 6600k's and 7600k's in the future. Intel can't charge for hyperthreading anymore thank god.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> Gonna need a real source on the whole SMT thing which is impossible right now because of NDA so ... I'm going to have to call bull until the benchmarks come out.
> 
> You are right the price of the 7700k is dead. There will be no more 6600k's and 7600k's in the future. Intel can't charge for hyperthreading anymore thank god.


here is something. 1800X @5.2GHz = 2449p
http://segmentnext.com/2017/02/23/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-overlocked/

i7 6900K 5GHz+
http://hwbot.org/submission/3249358_darkvenom_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6900k_2146_cb
i7 5960X 6GHz+
https://hwbot.org/submission/3233876_the_overclocking_knights_cinebench___r15_core_i7_5960x_2445_cb/


----------



## yawa

Can you imagine the insanity on here, if Zen+ or future steppings give the GlobalFoundries/Samsung 14nm an overclocking boost? Like, as in a 1700X C3 stepping hitting 4.8Ghz on a closed loop cooler or even air.

AMD got to parity with Intel in 2017. Every single one of us was wrong about this. I still cant get over that.

This is reverse Bulldozer.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Can you imagine the insanity on here, if Zen+ or future steppings give the GlobalFoundries/Samsung 14nm an overclocking boost? Like, as in a 1700X C3 stepping hitting 4.8Ghz on a closed loop cooler or even air.
> 
> AMD got to parity with Intel in 2017. Every single one of us was wrong about this. I still cant get over that.
> 
> This is reverse Bulldozer.


Well, given that GloFo didn't screw up the chip at a new process node this time, I have to say i'm impressed. Maybe they've finally got their act together.

I think that Zen+ won't be that huge of a jump from what Zen is. A couple of refinements and possibly the addition of some new commands is pretty much all i'm expecting to be honest.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Hmm the missing cores must still be there with the l3 using up all that power


The 6-core parts are made from the same 8-core die, so yes they are present. I'm not fussed about the TDP being 95 W. In fact, I welcome it. And I hope there is a 4-core version to follow. It not only allows for better clocks, but also for XFR to do its thing more freely. Also, I don't think I need to mention this, but all 6-core parts retain the full 16 MB of cache from the Ryzen 7 line-up, which essentially mirrors what AMD did for the FX-6000 series.

Ryzen 3 models will be produced from Raven Ridge dies, which explains why they are coming later than everything else. Raven Ridge will retain the full 8 MB of cache. And per-core frequency scaling is a thing with Ryzen. Great news for single-threaded performance, if you own a 1600X, 1700, 1700X or 1800X. Ryzen Master is brilliant in every way.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Well X stand also for performance and 3.4GHz+ is on 1700X/1800X.


The "X" in the model names stand for something anonymous that AMD is yet to disclose. Expect to find out in reviews.







It's not the presence of XFR, or the fact that models with the X suffix lack a cooler, even though that makes perfect sense.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> You are right the price of the 7700k is dead. There will be no more 6600k's and 7600k's in the future. Intel can't charge for hyperthreading anymore thank god.


Intel's pricing won't change, but its product stack will. Expect Coffee Lake Core i5s to feature 4C/8T, while the current 6C/12T Core i7 will shift from the enthusiast platform, down to the mainstream platform. It'll be interesting to see what Intel does with Celeron because Ryzen doesn't really have a product to compete with that.

I also wanted to touch on the possibility of a mobile Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7. At 45 watts, you're looking at clock speeds of 2.70 GHz to 3.20 GHz. Perfectly obtainable.


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Well, given that GloFo didn't screw up the chip at a new process node this time, I have to say i'm impressed. Maybe they've finally got their act together.
> 
> I think that Zen+ won't be that huge of a jump from what Zen is. A couple of refinements and possibly the addition of some new commands is pretty much all i'm expecting to be honest.


Well that much could have been all the stuff they shared, got back from the Samsung deal on this as well. Back in 2013 they agreed to start sharing info and resources. Im sure that has something to do with this.

On the Zen+ thing, this is a brand new architecture. Keller supposedly left them years of materials on how to improve it, with Zen+ being a 15% gain (likely an undersell since Zen itself was 52% instead of 40%). I think it's entirely possibly Overclocking get's better pretty quickly on these. Honestly, this being a Jimmy K chip ans all, I'd bet money that by Zen + if not simply further steppings, 4.5 to 4.6 Ghz on a the best air coolers will be possible on the 8 cores.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Well that much could have been all the stuff they shared, got back from the Samsung deal on this as well. Back in 2013 they agreed to start sharing info and resources. Im sure that has something to do with this.


Well, given the way their products have had glaring power leakage issues throughout the past generations I was sure that nothing less than having it drawn in crayon would suffice for GloFo. I am pleasantly pleased with the way things are going for the Ryzen rollout thus far however. If Zen+ really is a improvement of 10% to 15% percent as you said then I would be thrilled.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Keller supposedly left them years of materials on how to improve it [...]. Honestly, this being a Jimmy K chip ans all [...]


Zen isn't the product of Keller. K12 was Keller's and when that was canceled, he left for Tesla. Zen is the product of Suzanne Plummer, and her Zen team.

*Zen* - 14 nm; +52% IPC gain; SMT2
*Zen r2* - 14 nm; +8% IPC gain; +15% clock gain
*Zen r3* - 7 nm; +15% IPC gain; +10% clock gain; SMT4


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen isn't the product of Keller. K12 was Keller's and when that was canceled, he left for Tesla. Zen is the product of Suzanne Plummer, and her Zen team.
> 
> *Zen* - 14 nm; +52% IPC gain; SMT2
> *Zen r2* - 14 nm; +8% IPC gain; +15% clock gain
> *Zen r3* - 7 nm; +15% IPC gain; +10% clock gain; SMT4


Honestly if that's true, that makes it even more ridiculous.

I had heard Keller left after finishing this product and not getting to finish K12. If Plummer's team was soley responsible for this masterpiece of chip design, I'm sad Lisa isnt hyping that up more.

Point is, considering Zen is a new architecture, I fully expect some pretty heavy gains comparitively to Intel over the next few years. Especially if Samsung get's that 10nm node out on schedule.

What a time to plan a system!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Yes yes! Now that's how you rock a 2600k! But who was temps?


It was the latest R15 version on Maxon's website. Temps got up to 80C on one core with my H80 running at max but that was on the MT test. The single core test only got into the 50C's. Its probably been 3-4 years since I even OC'd the old 2600K honestly! I still had one of the first BIOS versions for my P67 Sabertooth so i had to flash it first...


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen isn't the product of Keller. K12 was Keller's and when that was canceled, he left for Tesla. Zen is the product of Suzanne Plummer, and her Zen team.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *Zen* - 14 nm; +52% IPC gain; SMT2
> *Zen r2* - 14 nm; +8% IPC gain; +15% clock gain
> *Zen r3* - 7 nm; +15% IPC gain; +10% clock gain; SMT4


I thought that Jim Keller was heading both design teams, no?
Nontheless, if I'm not mistaken, K12 was not canceled, Lisa Su said, I believe during the Q3'16 ECT, that she will give more information on the custom arm design win in 2018.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Everything I have read for years was that Keller directly led the Zen design team...


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Yes yes! Now that's how you rock a 2600k! But who was temps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the latest R15 version on Maxon's website. Temps got up to 80C on one core with my H80 running at max but that was on the MT test. The single core test only got into the 50C's. Its probably been 3-4 years since I even OC'd the old 2600K honestly! I still had one of the first BIOS versions for my P67 Sabertooth so i had to flash it first...
Click to expand...

My 2600k would prime at 5 ghz on an h60 when it was new - amazes me to this day ( 1.42 volts , irrc) Just managed 174 on the single thread at 4.4 on 4790k ( 2933 d- plats).


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen isn't the product of Keller. K12 was Keller's and when that was canceled, he left for Tesla. Zen is the product of Suzanne Plummer, and her Zen team.


You make it sound as if there were two separate groups of CPU architects within AMD ,one under Keller and one under Plummer. This is not true, Plummer is just a senior director, she was under Keller which was a CVP and chief architect. Basically the CPU honcho at AMD, reporting to Papermaster which is the CTO. Zen is the kid of many many talented engineers, but Keller set the guidelines and was responsible for the crucial decisions. Everyone that has worked in a corporate environment understands these things.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> My 2600k would prime at 5 ghz on an h60 when it was new - amazes me to this day ( 1.42 volts , irrc) Just managed 174 on the single thread at 4.4 on 4790k ( 2933 d- plats).


That reminds me, I'm running Vengeance 2 x 4GB 1600MHz dimms, if that makes any difference to R15. My particular 2600K was never a great OCer, even when new. Don't think it ever did more than 4.8GHz at any voltage and I highly doubt it would run Prime for long at this OC, but its good enough to run R15.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen isn't the product of Keller. K12 was Keller's and when that was canceled, he left for Tesla. Zen is the product of Suzanne Plummer, and her Zen team.
> 
> *Zen* - 14 nm; +52% IPC gain; SMT2
> *Zen r2* - 14 nm; +8% IPC gain; +15% clock gain
> *Zen r3* - 7 nm; +15% IPC gain; +10% clock gain; SMT4


7 nm can't have clock gain. Physical restrictions of silicon says no.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> I thought that Jim Keller was heading both design teams, no?
> Nontheless, if I'm not mistaken, K12 was not canceled, Lisa Su said, I believe during the Q3'16 ECT, that she will give more information on the custom arm design win in 2018.


By "canceled," I did mean that it was put on hold. My bad. Poor choice of words on my part there.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Everything I have read for years was that Keller directly led the Zen design team...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> You make it sound as if there were two separate groups of CPU architects within AMD ,one under Keller and one under Plummer. This is not true, Plummer is just a senior director, she was under Keller which was a CVP and chief architect. Basically the CPU honcho at AMD, reporting to Papermaster which is the CTO. Zen is the kid of many many talented engineers, but Keller set the guidelines and was responsible for the crucial decisions. Everyone that has worked in a corporate environment understands these things.


I am not saying that Keller had _nothing_ to do with Zen. Of course he did. But Zen itself isn't his. (It's not Plummer's either, in a technical sense.)

I am with you on attributing Zen to the many engineers that worked on it. The people higher up typically get all the glory, while those doing the bidding just receive their paychecks. That's sad, but it's how business works.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Keller has more than earned his reputation in the industry and then some. Believe me, Ryzen has his fingerprints all over it...


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> 7 nm can't have clock gain. Physical restrictions of silicon says no.


Three letters; EUV.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Keller has more than earned his reputation in the industry and then some. Believe me, Ryzen has his fingerprints all over it...


He has done some good things, I agree. But I refuse to attribute an architecture to one person. K7 wasn't his, K8 wasn't his (at least the version of the core that was used), and Zen isn't his.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Keller has more than earned his reputation in the industry and then some. Believe me, Ryzen has his fingerprints all over it...


It better not! If for some reason I happen to find fingerprints on the heat spreader when unboxing my Ryzen, I'll most likely return it.
The cpu should be untouched, pristine. Fingerprints are greasy and contaminated, and that's not supposed to happen on a brand new cpu.


----------



## kapulek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Zen isn't the product of Keller. K12 was Keller's and when that was canceled, he left for Tesla. Zen is the product of Suzanne Plummer, and her Zen team.
> 
> *Zen* - 14 nm; +52% IPC gain; SMT2
> *Zen r2* - 14 nm; +8% IPC gain; +15% clock gain
> *Zen r3* - 7 nm; +15% IPC gain; +10% clock gain; SMT4


ZEN has SMT, not SMT2. SMT2 would be 1 core / 4 threads. SMT4 - 1 core / 8 threads.


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Keller has more than earned his reputation in the industry and then some. Believe me, Ryzen has his fingerprints all over it...


No one is denying Keller played a huge role in its development - however some of us think it's a bit unfair to down play all the other very talented engineers working on Zen.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Three letters; EUV.


I talked about silicon restrictions, not about manufacturing technology. Too thin traces and small transistors would only cause problems. If Intel laminates it with something to prevent these problems, it will not be silicon wafer anymore.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kapulek*
> 
> ZEN has SMT, not SMT2. SMT2 would be 1 core / 4 threads. SMT4 - 1 core / 8 threads.


I think it's more sane to call three way HT as SMT3, and eleven way HT as SMT11.


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> It better not! If for some reason I happen to find fingerprints on the heat spreader when unboxing my Ryzen, I'll most likely return it.
> The cpu should be untouched, pristine. Fingerprints are greasy and contaminated, and that's not supposed to happen on a brand new cpu.


I'd get him to sign it too


----------



## motherpuncher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> My 3930k is basically a 4.5ghz 2600k right now without the HT (HT disabled with 4 cores active) so a 2500k basically. Dont ask why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got 158 on the run I did.
> 
> Wonder what a 7700k(or i5 kaby) @ 5ghz+ with good mem does in single core to see how far Sandy has fallen


My 7700k at 5.0 did 1078 mt and 214 st and i have 3200mhz cas15 ram


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motherpuncher*
> 
> My 7700k at 5.0 did 1078 mt and 214 st and i have 3200mhz cas15 ram


Just ran my 2600K @ 5ghz with 2133mhz DDR3

single: 178 (20% less)
Multi: 889 (21% Less)


----------



## motherpuncher

While I don't know enough about the technicals to make any accusations of Intel getting lazy, I will say to me it SEEMS like they could have done better from Sandy to Skylake. But now that AMD is more than competitive again, maybe we will see bigger improvements?


----------



## soth7676

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Just ran my 2600K @ 5ghz with 2133mhz DDR3
> 
> single: 178 (20% less)
> Multi: 889 (21% Less)


So Sandy is not THAT far behind then....Good thing I didnt feel the overriding need to update CPUs and/or platforms every time intel did a "tick" or "tock" upgrade in their lineup. Unless reviews turn out to be horrible for Ryzen, my feeling I will will be having a new AMD CPU in the daily driver computer soon.... Thank god a microcenter is nearby my workplace as well...


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> It better not! If for some reason I happen to find fingerprints on the heat spreader when unboxing my Ryzen, I'll most likely return it.
> The cpu should be untouched, pristine. Fingerprints are greasy and contaminated, and that's not supposed to happen on a brand new cpu.












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kapulek*
> 
> ZEN has SMT, not SMT2. SMT2 would be 1 core / 4 threads. SMT4 - 1 core / 8 threads.


2-way SMT is written as SMT2. 4-way SMT is written as SMT4. This is exactly how IBM writes it for POWER9 (on-top of it being more logical).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> No one is denying Keller played a huge role in its development - however some of us think it's a bit unfair to down play all the other very talented engineers working on Zen.


Precisely. The guys further down who put all the hours in don't get nearly enough credit. Just a paycheck to show their hard work, which definitely isn't enough; especially from a consumer point of view.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I talked about silicon restrictions, not about manufacturing technology. Too thin traces and small transistors would only cause problems. If Intel laminates it with something to prevent these problems, it will not be silicon wafer anymore.


Of course. That goes without saying. But relying less on silicon is how IBM wants to get around this issue.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I think it's more sane to call three way HT as SMT3, and eleven way HT as SMT11.


Yes.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motherpuncher*
> 
> My 7700k at 5.0 did 1078 mt and 214 st and i have 3200mhz cas15 ram


Thats is low actually.
8C/16T Ryzen does 2449p at 5.2GHz, which means that 4C/8T at 5.2GHz will do 1224.5p. Then with simple calculation this would mean that 4C/8T @4.6GHz will do 1083p.


----------



## motherpuncher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Thats is low actually.
> 8C/16T Ryzen does 2449p at 5.2GHz, which means that 4C/8T at 5.2GHz will do 1224.5p. Then with simple calculation this would mean that 4C/8T @4.6GHz will do 1083p.


Yeah I don't really know if its low or not, I was just responding to someone's request to know what skylake did at 5.0 and what the memory was. Unlike what I've been reading on these ryzen threads, I'm actually a 7700k owner who is very much looking forward to buying the 1600x. My first ever build was all AMD/ATI and I've been waiting for a reason to go back. Also unlike everyone else (intel fanboys it seems) I don't ONLY play CS:Go or Dota (in fact I don't play either of those at all) on my computer, so getting an extra 4-5 fps on single threaded games doesn't mean much to me. I personally want both companies to provide us with the best performance they can for the best price they can.... I like to root for the everyday man, not giant corporations.


----------



## DerkaDerka

Can't wait to get my hands on the 1800x.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Keller has more than earned his reputation in the industry and then some. Believe me, Ryzen has his fingerprints all over it...
> 
> 
> 
> It better not! If for some reason I happen to find fingerprints on the heat spreader when unboxing my Ryzen, I'll most likely return it.
> The cpu should be untouched, pristine. Fingerprints are greasy and contaminated, and that's not supposed to happen on a brand new cpu.
Click to expand...











A+ use of punnery!

In all seriousness, however, this year sounds like an excellent time to make the switch back to AMD! Hopefully I can get AM4 mounts for my H60.









8C/16T really feels excessive to me, so I will probably wait as the Ryzen production process continues to mature and the 6C/12T parts begin to come out. I don't really do enough gaming to warrant Crossfire, so I'll go for a B350 board provided it has at least 6 SATA ports, and an R5 1600X sounds like it will fill the bill!


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motherpuncher*
> 
> My 7700k at 5.0 did 1078 mt and 214 st and i have 3200mhz cas15 ram










Yeah good ol' Sandy-E cant keep up with the quad cores now lol. I think i'd get like 1100~ maybe 1200 With luck in MT on 6/12 at 4.5Ghz.

7700K superior in ST and on par in MT (at least in Cinebench) vs a 6c 12t 3930k @ 4.5 FeelsBadMan.

Served me well from early 2012 if I recall to around mid 2016. And is serving me as best she can as a placeholder pc right now(only have 4 cores enable with no Hyperthreading cause of various issues) till I snatch a Ryzen.


----------



## sticks435

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A+ use of punnery!
> 
> In all seriousness, however, this year sounds like an excellent time to make the switch back to AMD! Hopefully I can get AM4 mounts for my H60.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8C/16T really feels excessive to me, so I will probably wait as the Ryzen production process continues to mature and the 6C/12T parts begin to come out. I don't really do enough gaming to warrant Crossfire, so I'll go for a B350 board provided it has at least 6 SATA ports, and an R5 1600X sounds like it will fill the bill!


I want to see what the 1800x with 2 cores disabled using the Ryzen Master OC software can do per core when gaming compared to the same for the 1700X. Then I want to see reviews of the 1600X and see if they are close. If so, might go with a 1700X after the release pricing settles down and the bugs are worked out.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah good ol' Sandy-E cant keep up with the quad cores now lol. I think i'd get like 1100~ maybe 1200 With luck in MT on 6/12 at 4.5Ghz.
> 
> 7700K superior in ST and on par in MT (at least in Cinebench) vs a 6c 12t 3930k @ 4.5 FeelsBadMan.
> 
> Served me well from early 2012 if I recall to around mid 2016. And is serving me as best she can as a placeholder pc right now(only have 4 cores enable with no Hyperthreading cause of various issues) till I snatch a Ryzen.


Your numbers would put the 3930K about 14% faster than the 500MHz higher clocked 7700K in MT. Hardly "on par" in my opinion. SB-E 6-core is still a vastly superior MT CPU to a quad core, even a very fast quad core (well, in the MT scenarios that SB-E actually supports). And my 3960X would do 4.8GHz so the 7700K doesn't really even have that much of a clock speed advantage.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soth7676*
> 
> So Sandy is not THAT far behind then....Good thing I didnt feel the overriding need to update CPUs and/or platforms every time intel did a "tick" or "tock" upgrade in their lineup. Unless reviews turn out to be horrible for Ryzen, my feeling I will will be having a new AMD CPU in the daily driver computer soon.... Thank god a microcenter is nearby my workplace as well...


Someone has been posting around OCN with very uplifting comments regarding performance of the 1800x he has been testing. He hasn't said much, but what he has said is encouraging.


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Your numbers would put the 3930K about 14% faster than the 500MHz higher clocked 7700K in MT. Hardly "on par" in my opinion. SB-E 6-core is still a vastly superior MT CPU to a quad core, even a very fast quad core (well, in the MT scenarios that SB-E actually supports). And my 3960X would do 4.8GHz so the 7700K doesn't really even have that much of a clock speed advantage.


Still close enough though considering a 50% thread advantage.

At the very least, Sandy-e could hit 5Ghz with a decent chip and good cooling. 6core intel oc clocks have only gotten lower since.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Still close enough though considering a 50% thread advantage.
> 
> At the very least, Sandy-e could hit 5Ghz with a decent chip and good cooling. 6core intel oc clocks have only gotten lower since.


Clocks will likely improve with Skylake-E, and Kaby-E (If they make a Kaby-E)


----------



## artemis2307

wait for 3rd party gaming and productive reviews guys
synthetics numbers don't mean shet


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Clocks will likely improve with Skylake-E, and Kaby-E (If they make a Kaby-E)


The "E" has been replaced by an 'X'.

Kaby Lake-X brings only two quad-core 112 W processors (this is taken from my CMS). The integrated graphics are disabled by default, but can be enabled in the BIOS, and these chips only support dual-channel memory on the new LGA2066 quad-channel platform.

Skylake-X is the Broadwell-E replacement, with 140 W 6-core, 8-core and 10-core SKUs. And according to reports, there might even be a 150 W 'superclocked' edition (read: 100 MHz more).

*Edit:* I forgot to upload the more recent version of the page with all-core turbo frequencies. Fixed.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> The "E" has been replaced by an 'X'.
> 
> Kaby Lake-X brings only two quad-core 112 W processors (this is taken from my CMS). The integrated graphics are disabled by default, but can be enabled in the BIOS, and these chips only support dual-channel memory on the new LGA2066 quad-channel platform.
> 
> Skylake-X is the Broadwell-E replacement, with 140 W 6-core, 8-core and 10-core SKUs. And according to reports, there might even be a 150 W 'superclocked' edition (read: 100 MHz more).


Why intel would revert to adding more Quad cores on a larger chipset ala the 3820k, and 4820k is beyond me. I see no benefit to increasing the cost of ownership of a quad core when hexacores can be had on the cheap now.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Why intel would revert to adding more Quad cores on a larger chipset ala the 3820k, and 4820k is beyond me. I see no benefit to increasing the cost of ownership of a quad core when hexacores can be had on the cheap now.


It is a good question. I can only assume that Intel feels the new platform needs a decent product stack to be compelling enough to shift over from LGA2011-3. Not only that, but I would hazard a guess that the LGA2066 motherboards have better VRM configuration to support overclocking on these parts. I would hope that they overclock pretty well, but it remains to be seen exactly.

It's currently unknown how KBL-X will be priced; I would assume similar to the KBL-S counterparts, but you never know. They are 100% the same core underneath. That also means dual-channel will be limited (officially) to DDR4-2400.

It also boggles my mind why Intel keeps reverting back to Haswell-like model naming. Initially, when Skylake was launched, Intel had said it was reverting back to the more simpler Sandy Bridge-style naming scheme (of course, not applying to mobile as they _always_ need ridiculous model names, apparently), but now we have 7×40K SKUs... I give up even trying to understand Intel these days.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Still close enough though considering a 50% thread advantage.
> 
> At the very least, Sandy-e could hit 5Ghz with a decent chip and good cooling. 6core intel oc clocks have only gotten lower since.


To be fair SB-E doesn't just need good cooling for 5GHz, needs superb cooling.


----------



## cjwilson

Guys...

CPU-Z ST for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (overclocked)
CPU-Z MT for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (overclocked)


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Guys...
> 
> CPU-Z ST for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (overclocked)
> CPU-Z MT for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (overclocked)












What's the actual speed of that CPU?


----------



## Techi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cjwilson*
> 
> Guys...
> 
> CPU-Z ST for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (overclocked)
> CPU-Z MT for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (overclocked)


It has its own news thread as well btw.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Canard PC Hardware @ Twitter*
> 
> 1/ This sample is overclocked, NOT at stock speed. 2/ CPU-Z Benchmark algo. were built for 256KB L2. Ryzen overperforms due to his 512KB L2.


----------



## cjwilson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the actual speed of that CPU?


I estimate between 4.60 and 4.70 GHz.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CPC*
> 
> 1/ This sample is overclocked, NOT at stock speed. 2/ CPU-Z Benchmark algo. were built for 256KB L2. Ryzen overperforms due to his 512KB L2.


Not only that, but I believe the CPU-Z benchmark is a legacy integer workload. We already know that Zen shines in integer (offering almost identical performance to the deca-core 6950X).

Nevertheless, we have CPU-Z's benchmark for integer, Cinebench R15 for floating-point, and PassMark's sub-tests for both integer _and_ floating-point.

I guess we're just waiting on a legitimate PassMark result before we can draw a proper average.


----------

