• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Demos Breakthrough Performance of the ZEN CPU Core

Im going to guess they locked the processors both at 3.0Ghz and turned off all boost features on both to make sure they were an apples to apples comparison, or maybe that is where the boost algorithm of both would allow either to reach the same clock speeds.


I hope this is true, and await some more reviews of the chips. I hope as well that they are using TSMC or someone else to make the performance Zen cores for the obvious performance and power benefits , but perhaps GloFlo will be able to make them cheaper so instead of paying through the nose for a chip with low yields and limited availability, we can have a good old fashioned price war again.

Kevin King said:
Hmm, the Broadwell-e was clocked wayyy below it's normal clock speed, 3.0GHz versus what it's sold as, 3.7GHz. This tells me that Summit Ridge likely won't be clocked at a similar frequency to Broadwell-E, otherwise they would've shown that comparison, right? It's exciting, sure, but if it's not able to match the clock rate of Intel, I'm not exactly hyped...
Click to expand...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117645


Um, no. Intel 140W at 3.2Ghz with 3.7 boost on a over $10000 chip.

Would I take a chip that can only reach 3.0Ghz at 140W out of the box for $500? All day long.
 
Last edited:
download.jpg

I've been waiting patiently since I had my AMD 965 BE @ 3.8Ghz -> FX 6300 -> FX 8370.

Good thing I just bought some shares too in AMD because I have a good feeling that Zen will make heads roll.

Intel has amazing chips, but its good to see AMD stepping up the bar again and making the CPU market more competative. Granted reviews are great, I won't mind it if it beats or is on par with the $1,000 Intel CPU. This is great because the AMD Zen will probably retail between $200-$350. Looks like I will be upgrading Q1 2017!
 
KarymidoN said:
That's the problem with AMD, it always tries to match the Current Intel processors, while Intel always tries to overcome the processors that are already on the market. Zen will be another generation of weak and poorly optimized processors that will only pay off in overclock (I'm an AMD User for over 3 years).
Click to expand...

Well there is a lot more to that statement.
1. AMD has overcome its processors with this by a mile it seems.
2. AMD tried something new/different with Bulldozer which in the end did not really pay off, but I can only applaud the effort, I wish a lot LOT more developers of everything would try different new technologies.
(Intel project larrabee for real time ray tracing, where is my real time raytracing, why is everything polygons for forever now since we used to have other tech as well like Vector graphics, explore damn it, explore!)
3. Intel only has to overcome its own processors and with all due respect barely has done that since the 2600k probably because of the lack of competition but that does not change that fact.
 
I am keen on Zen, mainly because it will bring competition and 4 core for mainstream taboo could be broken.

Due to my PC usage, rendering, I am close on pulling trigger on purchasing 5820K or an 12core ES Xeon chip from China with a X99 board.

If Zen is even remoteply competitive with Broadwell-E with a clear price advantage, it's somethig I'd consider. However, I will not trust any claims and benchmarks from either camp because the history has shown they can never be trusted especially AMD claims.
I want reviews from several independent websites and make my own conclusion before pulling the trigger.

Which means this AMD's demo is like water off a duck's back.
 
m1dg3t said:
Nice! Now give me an enthusiast class iTX MoBo to go along with it so i can rid myself of Intel.
Click to expand...
I hear ya! I'm still using an old Athlon II X4 in a Shuttle SN78SH7 but it must be upgrade time soon.
 
Jism said:
It's always never enough with you people. They go core to core thread to thread clock to clock, on a bench that is HIGLY reliant on all cores / threads. Outcome is that AMD finishes up that test FASTER then Intel's counterchip. I dont think they would be clocking down that intel chip by putting the bclk down, slower memory speeds and all but simply set for a 30x MP and not 37x.

Bottom point is is that AMD actually offers something with raw power that COMPETES with intel's 8c/16t CPU worth 1000$.
Click to expand...

All we know so far is that a Zen processor clocked at 3 GHz has marginally better performance in one application than an underclocked intel CPU with the same number of cores and threads. We don't know anything about the rest of the configuration used by both processors (first of all the memory configuration). Until we will have an official review and the price for the new processors, we actually don't know anything.

I hope they will deliver what they have promised, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Jism said:
That source was relatively unknown, and now we have actual video, 2 systems, hopefully identical, and still showing it actually outperforms a 1000$ CPU of intel.

I'm pretty confident that the ZEN will compete, if not now then in any other second refresh of those ZEN CPU's. The baseline is set. They need to work, refine and perfect that design.
Click to expand...

Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).
 
Pumper said:
Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).
Click to expand...

Because AMD always have no matter what! even when AMD was king of the hill they still sold there CPU's cheaper.

I think you are the one that needs a history lesson :p
 
Last edited:
Pumper said:
Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).
Click to expand...
Sucks ass? My 4 year old FX6300 that cost me £100 STILL let's me play all current games at their highest settings combined with a GTX 1060 and it's even cheaper now!
 
Pumper said:
Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).
Click to expand...

Because that's where the consumer market share is. The sweet spot is around the $250-$350 price point.
 
Melvis said:
Because AMD always have no matter what! even when AMD was king of the hill they still sold there CPU's cheaper.
Click to expand...

Not by much if my memories serve me correctly.

I used to own AMD 4x4 platform and its CPUs were as much as (but were cheaper, yes) Intel's Pentium Xtreme edition CPU.
 
Pumper said:
Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).
Click to expand...

Where is current ZEN CPU pricing? how would you know? We only know there's a various TDP enveloppe starting from 35W up to 95W and perhaps a FX with 125/140W TDP.

On the other hand, it's useless to make CPU for upper high-end market alone. It's on the low and mid end where the 'good stuff' happens. Where the main consumers and businesses are who need a decent computer.

Just as the RX 480, sitting on 220$ up to 260$ avg still offering -5 to -10% performance compared to the much more expensive 1060.
 
rhythmeister said:
Sucks ass? My 4 year old FX6300 that cost me £100 STILL let's me play all current games at their highest settings combined with a GTX 1060 and it's even cheaper now!
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I had my 6300 @ 4.3-4.5ghz for 5 months until I've upgraded to 27'' 2560x1400 GYSNC 144Hz monitor. It would bottleneck like crazy. But at 1080p the 6300 does wonders. I agree with you on that. As for myself, I just got the 8370 @ 4.5ghz (since Zen will be more mainstream come Q1 2017). The 8370 with 16GB Ram, GTX1070 plays A LOT of games amazingly at ultra settings in 1400p resolutions. I was surprised. There is a little bit of bottleneck, but no where close to what I would experience with the 6300
 
rhythmeister said:
Sucks ass? My 4 year old FX6300 that cost me £100 STILL let's me play all current games at their highest settings combined with a GTX 1060 and it's even cheaper now!
Click to expand...

If you become GPU limited, then yes, the FX6300 is enough.
 
I'm not aboard the hype train, but I'm hoping AMD will finally help make real 8-cores mainstream. It's not expected that Zen will match Intel in overall performance, but I'm hoping AMD will compete in the mid-range desktop segment.

Higly clocked 8+ cores from Intel is too expensive today, but models with low clocks are actually bargains already, like the E5-2630 V4 2.2 GHz, 10 cores at $667 or the E5-2620 V4 2.1 GHz, 8 cores at $417.
 
efikkan said:
Higly clocked 8+ cores from Intel is too expensive today, but models with low clocks are actually bargains already, like the E5-2630 V4 2.2 GHz, 10 cores at $667 or the E5-2620 V4 2.1 GHz, 8 cores at $417.
Click to expand...

If you are willing to risk, take 50% off that on Chinese ES chips.
 
Anyone who doesn't want Zen to compete to Intel's offerings is a blue fanboy. Anyone wishing the Zen to succeed is either a red fanboy or a customer waiting for better products and lower prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top