Thursday, August 11th 2016

AMD "Summit Ridge" ZEN CPU at 2.80 GHz Beats 3.40 GHz Core i5-4670K

by
btarunr
 Discuss (126 Comments)
According to performance numbers of an AMD "Summit Ridge" ZEN CPU engineering-sample put out by WCCFTech, AMD's claims of IPC gains are gaining credibility, and showing signs of the gaming PC processor market warming up again. An engineering sample featuring 8 cores and 16 threads (via SMT), beat Intel's Core i5-4670K processor. This sample featured clock speeds of 2.80 GHz, with 3.20 GHz boost.

The "Summit Ridge" sample provided 10 percent higher frame-rates than a Core i5-4670K, in the "Ashes of the Singularity" 1080p benchmark. The chip is still convincingly beaten by 12 percent, by a Core i7-4790 (non-K), running at 3.60 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost. This shows that AMD could leverage the new 14 nm FinFET process to crank up clock-speeds, and produce SKUs competitive with current Intel "Skylake-D" Core i5 and Core i7 processors.
Source: WCCFTech

Related News

Add your own comment

126 Comments on AMD "Summit Ridge" ZEN CPU at 2.80 GHz Beats 3.40 GHz Core i5-4670K

#76
cadaveca
My name is Dave
G33k2Fr34kMaybe it is, but that's not what these numbers say. If these numbers are true, then an 8-core Zen is faster clock to clock than an 8-core Haswell.
8-Core Haswell is Haswell-E. So making that comparison directly will be pretty darn easy. What might be more interesting is to see if Zen has dual-channel or quad-channel DDR4, and what latency its memory controller can offer.
Posted on Reply
#77
EarthDog
There is something to be said for keeping your eye on the prize... eh Dave?! :)
Posted on Reply
#78
cadaveca
My name is Dave
EarthDogThere is something to be said for keeping your eye on the prize... eh Dave?! :)
It's an interesting thing, Zen, since so much in the core design will be different. I don't really care that much about gaming performance. I'd actually like to see it a bit less than what Intel has on offer, so that AMD can keep prices low. If Zen is really good, they might price it too high and that'd be terrible. We need first gen to be decent enough to attract attention, and then the 2nd gen to knock it out the park, before AMD can price chips like Intel does, and I'd actually rather them not do that, since it'll be easier to build market share if they are cheaper than what Intel offers, and if they have the capacity to meet market demand.

I mean, IPC is great and all, but if you can't clock it, IPC is meaningless.
Posted on Reply
#80
BirdyNV
Man deciding to build a PC at this moment in time is like "Aaagh!" Vega and Zen are coming (soon?) Effectively bringing real competition..fuuuuu----
Posted on Reply
#81
EarthDog
You are buying now though, no? Is it worth it to wait for less performamce but at a lower price? How much multi-threading are you doing? If a lot, you may want to wait... if not, just buy now. :)
Posted on Reply
#82
Jism
If the thing is close enough to intel's best product, then it's good already.
Posted on Reply
#83
cadaveca
My name is Dave
JismIf the thing is close enough to intel's best product, then it's good already.
..except Intel's top product is 6950X, which is 10 cores and 20 threads, not a 4-thread 4670K. :P
Posted on Reply
#84
Jism
That does'nt matter. What matters for AMD is to offer a product in both enterprise and consumer-market, that is able to compete. And when it competes in performance and price, AMD has a winner. Just as it had with that 480X.
Posted on Reply
#85
Caring1
Personally I'd be happy if it was as good as my current CPU in my specs, was cheaper, and didn't use more power.
Moar cores are always welcome crunching.
Posted on Reply
#86
xorbe
HocksterSo it's almost as fast as two year old mid range CPU's? Oh goody.
Even if that's the case, good enough to update my amd box without feeling guilty that it's stupid slow.
Posted on Reply
#87
LucidStrike
I'm amazed so many don't understand that even Intel's own enthusiast class CPUs can lose to its mainstream i7's depending on the application...I thought *I* was wet behind the ears. :|
Posted on Reply
#88
Prima.Vera
I guess the expectations from AMD are quite high after all those brilliant engineers that joined to design from scratch a new CPU...
Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to have another Athlon 64 anytime soon.
Posted on Reply
#89
Jism
40% IPC increase, more cores, less power and overal better performance was that goal. From the very first start.

They never said it would compete with intel high end offerings. It's the first revision. It still needs decent clocks. And it will have refreshments as well offering a few percentage more performance. Nobody have'nt even seen any true potential so far.

The first bulldozer was a horrible chip. The second revision did a little better. The third one did even more better, higher clocks and all. Some software adjustments made the bulldozer and vishera do better in Windows in general.

You cant build rome in one day. Even intel needs different revisions in order to 'perfect' it's I7 chips. It should be competetive, good pricing, low power usage, and offer much better performance compared to Vishera 8350.
Posted on Reply
#90
Nobody99
xorbeEven if that's the case, good enough to update my amd box without feeling guilty that it's stupid slow.
But you won't be able to buy AMD laptop and expect the battey to last.
Posted on Reply
#91
Melvis
From what I can see with those Benchmark scores (if real) and that the game is heavy multi threaded I think these new Zen CPU's if clocked at lets say 4GHz will perform (in games) around the i5/i7 level but in multi threaded programs like Sony Vegas, transcoding, stuff like that, they will fly! and will really shine. Just my 2 Cents.
Posted on Reply
#92
ensabrenoir
....simply follow the same path as you did with your gpu's......good performance at a great price and we'll all be ok.... absolute 0 on the hype Amd
Posted on Reply
#93
bug
MelvisFrom what I can see with those Benchmark scores (if real) and that the game is heavy multi threaded I think these new Zen CPU's if clocked at lets say 4GHz will perform (in games) around the i5/i7 level but in multi threaded programs like Sony Vegas, transcoding, stuff like that, they will fly! and will really shine. Just my 2 Cents.
Except there's no reason to assume these will scale to 4GHz. The complicated the pipeline, the more IPC, the harder it is to up the frequency. Plus, I can't think of a single CPU that leaked as an engineering sample running at X MHz to be later released running at twice the speed.
If Polaris scaled to 2GHz, it would probably beat Pascal. But it doesn't.
Posted on Reply
#94
Ubersonic
JismPlus, I can't think of a single CPU that leaked as an engineering sample running at X MHz to be later released running at twice the speed.
IB-E hex core, IIRC first sample seen was clocked at 1.8 or 2 GHz per core and the 4960X was 4 Ghz (overclock-able to a lot more with enough cooling too).
Posted on Reply
#95
Melvis
bugExcept there's no reason to assume these will scale to 4GHz. The complicated the pipeline, the more IPC, the harder it is to up the frequency. Plus, I can't think of a single CPU that leaked as an engineering sample running at X MHz to be later released running at twice the speed.
If Polaris scaled to 2GHz, it would probably beat Pascal. But it doesn't.
Im not assuming anything, im just going on past and present, there is no evidence to show that it wont be able to be clocked at 4GHz either and its was just an eg. The last few generations of AMD CPU's engineering samples have come out at around the 3GHz mark but by the final product, revisions etc there around 4GHz, so yeah I think its possible in the future for these Zen CPU's to be clocked up around or at least turbo to the 4GHz barrier. Time will tell! :)
Posted on Reply
#96
BiggieShady

Welp, that AMD Zen ES is benefiting from only 4 cores + SMT at what would seem lower than 3 GHz given how 3.2 GHz is probably max turbo with one core loaded.
Posted on Reply
#97
GoFigureItOut
Not related to the topic at hand, but does anyone know which package format Zen will be in? I've seen some articles that suggest Zen will use µOPGA. I've heard other people say it is impossible to cram 1,331 pins onto the CPU, and it must be on the motherboad. So, LGA.
Posted on Reply
#98
silentbogo
GoFigureItOutNot related to the topic at hand, but does anyone know which package format Zen will be in? I've seen some articles that suggest Zen will use µOPGA. I've heard other people say it is impossible to cram 1,331 pins onto the CPU, and it must be on the motherboad. So, LGA.
According to some speculations and brief display at Computex 2016 - it must be a PGA-1331, but it might've been a marketing thing with AM3 CPU and some silly engraving on heatspreader.
Posted on Reply
#99
Ubersonic
GoFigureItOutI've heard other people say it is impossible to cram 1,331 pins onto the CPU, and it must be on the motherboad. So, LGA.
Unless I am missing something, the CPU is the same size as the socket so the amount of pins that can be fit in the area should be the same for both no?

/Shrug, maybe it's more complicated, I always just assumed Intel moved the pins to the motherboard because they are cheaper than CPUs so better place to have bent pins lol.
Posted on Reply
#100
Solaris17
Super Dainty Moderator
Dr_MNew 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
RCoonMy thoughts exactly. I'd like to see a game benchmarked that can only use 4 threads.
seriously, I want to know what these numbers are compared to the skylakes everyones currently buying, not haswell CPUs
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 25th, 2024 19:34 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts