AMD Demos Breakthrough Performance of the ZEN CPU Core

[cadaveca]

I'm confused. so the zen chip at 3k outperforms an underclocked 6900k. I wonder if they turned off boostclock as well.

It doesn't matter really, does it? Being even within a few % of Haswell-E on a clock-per-clock basis is better than I could have hoped for.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

I hope so but don't count on it and certainly don't give anybody any money until you see numbers

i dont have any money so..

 

[$ReaPeR$]

i think that many people here are reading this the "wrong" way. maybe AMD just wanted to show that clock per clock core per core they are equal to Intel. nothing more nothing less. in the end, even if they managed to do that (no real benchmarks yet) it doesn't mean that they "won", Intel has 80% of the market, that isn't something that changes in one night, and also they can respond much more easily since they are in that position and have vast resources in their possession.

 

[RejZoR]

Looks good.

 

[dyonoctis]

About the whole downclocking thing, a reviewer at hardware.fr explained this :
"No no, AMD just wanted to make a comparison at 3.0 GHz with equal frequency (by disabling the turbo etc.) to showcase its progress on the architecture side (that's the idea of this first wave of communication from AMD). We did the same thing to compare architectures in our tests"

Even if we are supposing that zen will not get clock as high as intel, the price will certainly be great for the performance. And 3D rendering is great to mesure up brute speed.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

I'm sold

 

[ensabrenoir]

....i want to believe.... By the time this comes out Intel will have possiblly two new architectures out. We needed this 3rd quarter last year. Read somewhere intel gonna unify the platforms so one board could run anything from a dual core to a 10 core monster. Truely exciting times ahead.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I have this weird feeling that the CPU they keep putting up front is going to be the 8C/16T CPU that will be released at 2.8 GHz with 3.2 GHz turbo. It will be treated like some kind of second coming with a $400+ price tag for "enthusiast". It will over shadow the 4C/8T and 6C/12T models because those are the ones that will be clocked at 4.0 GHz or higher that most gamers will be buying. Assuming this is all real of course.

I think the first gen of Zen will be a mixed bag of great 4C/8T and 6C/12T CPUs for decent price that will win them some market share back, but I think they are going to fumble the 8C/16T somehow.

 

[Basard]

Holy crap I totally wanna bang Lisa Su right now!

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

....i want to believe.... By the time this comes out Intel will have possiblly two new architectures out. We need this 3rd quarter last year. Read somewhere intel gonna unify the platforms so one board could run anything from a dual core to a 10 core monster. Truely exciting times ahead.

That's a ways off ,have you seen Kaby lake, 4/8 cores/threads still, it could get messy, definitely looking like something I might like.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Holy crap I totally wanna bang Lisa Su right now!

 

[cdawall]

theres been no superpi or luxmark single thread or cinbench

I'm going to stop you right here. Even when amd held the performance crown by leaps and bounds, Intel still lead in at least two of those benchmarks. Not clock for clock, but overall. If you even remotely think that superpi is a good measure of cpu performance really in anyway you should stop arguing either side and buy a tablet.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

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...

This....

 

[dalekdukesboy]

It doesn't matter really, does it? Being even within a few % of Haswell-E on a clock-per-clock basis is better than I could have hoped for.

Shows how low your hopes were...

 

[cdawall]

This....

It's actually only a 3.2ghz chip

http://ark.intel.com/m/products/941...-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz#@product/specifications

Turbo is anything from 3.3-4.0 depending on core usage. In theory AMD had a prerelease cpu that was set to 3ghz and wanted to compare it to an Intel at the same speed. AMD may not have final turbo numbers finished on their prerelease product, but hurry up and base every decision you will make AMD on a cpu that isn't out and a single slide from a PR show.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

I doubt anyone here wants the AMD processor to suck. I was about to comment on that cool graphic showing the old pentium 4's and the amd fx-55/57 etc when the pentium had to be clocked to hell to even be sorta close to the AMD...and yes I owned an fx-55 and loved it. However, we also know that simply by the age of that slide when AMD was ahead shows how long they have trailed and time after time underwhelmed in performance AND efficiency as well. So I think a healthy dose of skepticism at this point is perfectly reasonable, and with luck at the least AMD has a product that is within 10 percent or so of the Intel + or - and then we may have a ball game again and we all will win.

 

[ensabrenoir]

I doubt anyone here wants the AMD processor to suck. I was about to comment on that cool graphic showing the old pentium 4's and the amd fx-55/57 etc when the pentium had to be clocked to hell to even be sorta close to the AMD...and yes I owned an fx-55 and loved it. However, we also know that simply by the age of that slide when AMD was ahead shows how long they have trailed and time after time underwhelmed in performance AND efficiency as well. So I think a healthy dose of skepticism at this point is perfectly reasonable, and with luck at the least AMD has a product that is within 10 percent or so of the Intel + or - and then we may have a ball game again and we all will win.

...........saw you avatar and thought you were that other guy (he's AMD given human form)

 

[Prima.Vera]

As always, if those CPUs are faster than Intel's equivalents in Games and basic stuff, it will have a huge success. If not.... good luck.

 

[slozomby]

It doesn't matter really, does it? Being even within a few % of Haswell-E on a clock-per-clock basis is better than I could have hoped for.

I dunno. ops/clock don't mean much to me . where as as ops/$ or total ops are what I use to make decisions. I don't really care that at 3ghz chip a is faster than chip b. I either care about which chip completes my task faster or which chip at $x completes my task faster. that chip a is technically superior at Y Ghz isn't part of the math.

sometimes I care about it: which chip completes the task in a given time frame with the least power and heat.

so while the demo was technically interesting. what I'm going to consider is if I spend $x which will be faster and if chip b costs $400 more will I see that performance realized in saved time.

 

[BirdyNV]

As always, if those CPUs are faster than Intel's equivalents in Games and basic stuff, it will have a huge success. If not.... good luck.

Thing is, if they don't have to outperform intel. Same thing as not having to outperform NVidia. Because they have the Price to performance game on lock.

 

[TheGuruStud]

10 bajillion bitching about low clock...everyone OCs anyway... (plus how useless boost is under heavy load).

Wait...is it 8MB L3 per module of 4 cores? That's much better.

 

[Caring1]

I'm confused. so the zen chip at 3k outperforms an underclocked 6900k. I wonder if they turned off boostclock as well.

You wouldn't be confused if you actually read this thread.
Clocks were held at 3.0GHz.

 

[Makaveli]

Erm no, hate to tell you and about 10 000 other people on this forum will tell you just the same thing that AMD was cheaper on the 939 socket, the FX57 and 60 was around $1000-$1200 and the Pentium EE was around $1500 AUS, its just a fact

Anyone can post a pic like you did that is from god knows what source, and from even before launch date where in actual fact I never saw any CPU from AMD (price to performance comparison) be more then Intel.

That isn't some unknown source looks like it was taken from www.techreport.com

 

[bpgt64]

I like that they took a Broadwell-E processor, and matched it clock for clock. Showing the IPC difference on Zen is neck and neck with it. While, it's good to see AMD trading blows with intel. There are only really two concerns left.

1. How much can that 3.0 Ghz chip be overclock(and how easily)
2. Price point match up, do they take this and kick intel in the balls by pricing a 1100 Intel chip at 300 US.

Answer those two questions, and we'll see what real value you have here.

Valid Points Intel Fans will make;

Broadwell-E is has been out for a few months, and we have no idea when Zen will be street available.

Valid Points AMD Fans will make;

This is just a starting chip for them, who knows what's coming after, and this is a hell of alot better than the Bulldozer/Thuban era. Competition benefits everyone by making prices come down. The only people not rooting for AMD are people with more money than sense.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

...........saw you avatar and thought you were that other guy (he's AMD given human form)

Yes I think I posted in same forum as that guy and it was odd because we both had Tom Baker as Doctor Who as our avatar with same picture.