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

AMD Briefly Shows Off Zen “Summit Ridge” Silicon

Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
5,194 (1.35/day)
Processor Intel i7 950 @ 3.2GHz
Motherboard ASUS P6X58D-E
Cooling Corsair H50 push/pull
Memory Kingston HyperX 1600 8GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7970 OC
Storage Plextor M5P 128GB/WD Black 2x1TB,1x6TB/Seagate 1TB
Display(s) Panasonic TC-L32U3
Case Antec DF-85
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V371 AVR
Power Supply XFX 850w Black Edition
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software W10 Pro 64 bit
Core Solo VS netburst would represent a 40% IPC boost
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're not comparing the same performance tiers there. It's like comparing AMD's budget APU line, to their chips made for avid gamers.

Intel has always had their performance tiers too, like Celeron, on up to the mega expensive Extreme line.

Like I implied above, it's pretty much a moot point unless it's an apples to apples comparison. Otherwise it's about as silly as CPU speed records, which do nothing to account for actual performance.

Plus you guys are making it sound like Prescott actually hurt Intel as bad as Bulldozer did AMD. It wasn't even a scratch to them, let alone a huge impact. Lots of people were still playing on Northwoods, which held up fine well into Core 2 Duo release. Whereas AMD's Bulldozer disaster set them back quite a bit.

Plus Intel learns a lot better from their mistakes. Have you really seen them make any significant ones since those days? With AMD, the Phenom flop was followed by an even bigger one, and their marketing in general is still a mess.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,303 (4.65/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Well, are Intel CPU's 40% better in IPC alone? I don't think there is such masive gap...
Check out benchmarks. Specifically the single threaded benchmarks, which when at the same clocks, gives you an idea of the difference in IPC. Look at bulldozer vs Skylake in Super Pi for example. I can take a nap running 32M on AMD. :p
Now you're making it sound like AMD hasn't done anything worthwhile. Even when Core was released, AMD was in very good position with Athlon64 CPU's. The Athlon FX were used in nearly all benchmarks at the time. Even later, they had proper multi-core CPU's where Intel was mostly just stacking up stand alone cores into a single die. Hell, even Phenom processors weren't that bad, in fact the Phenom II X6 were quite highly praised.
When Conroe (the 'core' architecture) came out, AMD was toast from there.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,670 (5.12/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores || Into the Blue
Processor 2990WX || 5960X
Motherboard Asrock X399M || Asus X99M WS
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL || TBD
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL16 || EVGA 3200 2x8GB
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's || EVGA 1080Ti FE
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB || OCZ Vector 180 480GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz || TBD
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal || Supermicro S5 (GS5A-753K)
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w || Seasonic Snow Silent 750w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller || TBD
Keyboard Thermaltake Poseidon ZX, Steam controller || Corsair K70
Software W10P || W10P
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're not comparing the same performance tiers there. It's like comparing AMD's budget APU line, to their chips made for avid gamers.

Intel has always had their performance tiers too, like Celeron, on up to the mega expensive Extreme line.

Like I implied above, it's pretty much a moot point unless it's an apples to apples comparison.

Core solo with a socket adapter was used by a multitude of people to replace the junk ass P4 stuff from s478. It was technically a mobile CPU, but using those to overclock is nothing new. It was also the basis for the core 2 duo's that sealed AMD's movement out of the HEDT lineup.
 

Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
16,982 (3.06/day)
Location
Piteå
System Name Black MC in Tokyo
Processor Ryzen 5 2600x
Motherboard Asrock B450M-HDV
Cooling AMD Wraith Spire I think
Memory 2 x 8GB G-skill Aegis 3000 or somesuch
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2060 Gaming OC Pro
Storage Kingston A400 240GB | WD Blue 1TB x 2 | Toshiba P300 2TB
Display(s) BenQ GL2450HT
Case Antec dumpster find
Audio Device(s) Line6 UX1 + some headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Core GC500
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Dell Sk3205
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores I once had +100 dorfs in DF, so yeah pretty great
And even so, I had a Pentium 4 Northwood when I first got into gaming, and it performed admirably until dual core was needed. So there were some standouts in the P4 line.

I seem to remember the 2.4 Ghz Northwood being of good value.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
13,791 (2.27/day)
Oh PLEASE, first you compare an 8 core to 8 core 40% boost, to a single core to dual core 40% boost, and now you're claiming I'm ragging on ALL AMD products just because you have no answer for my mentioning that?

You were the one that took the argument 12 years back into product line, while I kept topic regarding AMD specifically to Bulldozer and Zen. So please, stop with the BS.

Again, I'm referring specifically to how deplorable BULLDOZER was, and I still think my point on it was correct. Intel never had to do a same core count increase of 40% to overcome such horrible design. Your example does not take into account the evolution to dual core.

You do know Bulldozer was the first iteration of that architecture and despite AMD admitting it was not what they expected, latest revisions are far from bad. There are countless users who love their FX-8150 or FX-8350 CPU's. Why? Because they are affordable and they still deliver a lot of grunt. You don't like AMD's current offering, fine. Me neither, why do you think I have Core i7 5820K in my system. But that doesn't mean I have to piss all over AMD because of it. They are in unfavorable position and Intel is pissing all over them the entire time in mostly questionable ways. I'm surprised they manage to deliver anything to be quite honest. But they are kicking and even if it's just 40% IPC over Bulldozer and they deliver it in a good package for a good price making it good value, that's great as well. I might not buy it, you might not buy it, but there will be people who will buy it just like there were people to buy FX-8150 and they still use them and like them.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
13,791 (2.27/day)
Check out benchmarks. Specifically the single threaded benchmarks, which when at the same clocks, gives you an idea of the difference in IPC. Look at bulldozer vs Skylake in Super Pi for example. I can take a nap running 32M on AMD. :p
When Conroe (the 'core' architecture) came out, AMD was toast from there.

Darling, AMD has always been slower in SuperPi, even when it was a leader in performance in the golden era of Athlon XP. How do I know? Because I was overclocking those puppies and benching in SuperPi a lot back then. And they were always slower in seconds while totally raping Intel in everything that actually matters.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,670 (5.12/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores || Into the Blue
Processor 2990WX || 5960X
Motherboard Asrock X399M || Asus X99M WS
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL || TBD
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL16 || EVGA 3200 2x8GB
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's || EVGA 1080Ti FE
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB || OCZ Vector 180 480GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz || TBD
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal || Supermicro S5 (GS5A-753K)
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w || Seasonic Snow Silent 750w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller || TBD
Keyboard Thermaltake Poseidon ZX, Steam controller || Corsair K70
Software W10P || W10P
Darling, AMD has always been slower in SuperPi, even when it was a leader in performance in the golden era of Athlon XP. How do I know? Because I was overclocking those puppies and benching in SuperPi a lot back then. And they were always slower in seconds while totally raping Intel in everything that actually matters.

Even back then the instruction set used by superpi was absurdly outdated.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
11,515 (2.05/day)
System Name Desktop / Laptop
Processor Intel i7 6700K @ 4.5GHz (1.270 V) / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard Asus Z170 Pro Gaming / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory 16GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz CL15 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 500GB + Samsung 850 Pro 512GB + Samsung 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s) 23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX Onboard / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10
I had a Pentium 4 Northwood when I first got into gaming, and it performed admirably until dual core was needed. So there were some standouts in the P4 line.

My first own Acer desktop had a Pentium 4 630 3GHz (prescott), it was running al my games at decent fps with a Ati X1950Pro at the time:D
I also did some rendering at the time but for that I needed patience:p
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
5,194 (1.35/day)
Processor Intel i7 950 @ 3.2GHz
Motherboard ASUS P6X58D-E
Cooling Corsair H50 push/pull
Memory Kingston HyperX 1600 8GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7970 OC
Storage Plextor M5P 128GB/WD Black 2x1TB,1x6TB/Seagate 1TB
Display(s) Panasonic TC-L32U3
Case Antec DF-85
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V371 AVR
Power Supply XFX 850w Black Edition
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software W10 Pro 64 bit
You do know Bulldozer was the first iteration of that architecture and despite AMD admitting it was not what they expected, latest revisions are far from bad. There are countless users who love their FX-8150 or FX-8350 CPU's. Why? Because they are affordable and they still deliver a lot of grunt. You don't like AMD's current offering, fine. Me neither, why do you think I have Core i7 5820K in my system. But that doesn't mean I have to piss all over AMD because of it. They are in unfavorable position and Intel is pissing all over them the entire time in mostly questionable ways. I'm surprised they manage to deliver anything to be quite honest. But they are kicking and even if it's just 40% IPC over Bulldozer and they deliver it in a good package for a good price making it good value, that's great as well. I might not buy it, you might not buy it, but there will be people who will buy it just like there were people to buy FX-8150 and they still use them and like them.

1. Obviously you've not read the countless threads on Steam and other forums where even recent Bulldozer models are performing like shit in a lot of games, and nothing can save it from poor low thread performance. A LOT of games still are not even made for quad threading. It's not all AMD's fault, because clearly devs don't support their chips as well even in a lot of quad threaded games, but AMD kinda brought it on themselves by taking that floating module risk. There's such a small percentage of people using them compared to Intel, that a lot of devs likely don't even play test for Bulldozer.

2. Despite all your defense of AMD CPUs, you still admit you don't like their current offering either, and right after claiming their latest revisions of it perform fine. I'm sorry, but you just can't have it both ways. I'm willing to accept that you'd rather they be more successful for the sake of healthy competition, but that's not really the way you're presenting your argument. In fact, all you're really doing now is contradicting yourself.

3. Again, I'm not here to bash on AMD holistically like you're implying. In fact I've gone on record here many times mentioning that I'm one of the ones waiting to see how Zen will compare to Intel's performance and price before building my next rig, and Skylake's pretty much equal performance to Haswell is a big part of the reason for that, which I've also mentioned many times. Are you living under a rock, or just ignoring most of what I say here?

4. Let's get one thing straight though, a leap of 40% means nothing when you're comparing to same core count, and a design that was crap. If anything it only shows that AMD is FINALLY getting a clue, but it is probably too little too late to save them from always being under Intel's dominance from now on.

I'm also feeling now that 40% is likely best case scenario, and far from average performance gain. Their now saying "targeting" 40%, vs beforehand pretty much assuring it, makes that a bit obvious. Plus, as I also stated, it depends how well devs support AMD's CPUs. Intel obviously has a huge share of that market now. It remains to be seen how much if any Zen will change that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
5,146 (0.92/day)
Location
AZ
the 9590 is 32-60% slower per core (depending on the cpu bench) than the 4790k, not counting in the clock speed difference. It is clocked 17.5% higher at stock and 13.6% faster under turbo.

If zen hits 40% more performance per core it will still need insane clock speeds to keep up in cpu benches. However in gaming the difference is only 10-15% on average so even if 40% ipc only translates to a gaming boost of 5-7.5% at similar clocks, it still leaves the gap at 5-7.5% with room for overclocks to make up the rest. That should give enough incentive to budget minded gamers.

To me that is why there isn't a huge server push. Being so far behind in ipc for cpu intensive applications means they simply won't be able to compete with the xeons. However on the gaming front they are much closer and a decent boost plus an economical price is all that's needed to recapture a bit of market share in that area.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
13,791 (2.27/day)
1. Obviously you've not read the countless threads on Steam and other forums where even recent Bulldozer models are performing like shit in a lot of games, and nothing can save it from poor low thread performance. A LOT of games still are not even made for quad threading. It's not all AMD's fault, because clearly devs don't support their chips as well even in a lot of quad threaded games, but AMD kinda brought it on themselves by taking that floating module risk. There's such a small percentage of people using them compared to Intel, that a lot of devs likely don't even play test for Bulldozer.

2. Despite all your defense of AMD CPUs, you still admit you don't like their current offering either, and right after claiming their latest revisions of it perform fine. I'm sorry, but you just can't have it both ways. I'm willing to accept that you'd rather they be more successful for the sake of healthy competition, but that's not really the way you're presenting your argument. In fact, all you're really doing now is contradicting yourself.

3. Again, I'm not here to bash on AMD holistically like you're implying. In fact I've gone on record here many times mentioning that I'm one of the ones waiting to see how Zen will compare to Intel's performance and price before building my next rig, and Skylake's pretty much equal performance to Haswell is a big part of the reason for that, which I've also mentioned many times. Are you living under a rock, or just ignoring most of what I say here?

4. Let's get one thing straight though, a leap of 40% means nothing when you're comparing to same core count, and a design that was crap. If anything it only shows that AMD is FINALLY getting a clue, but it is probably too little too late to save them from always being under Intel's dominance from now on.

I'm also feeling now that 40% is likely best case scenario, and far from average performance gain. Their now saying "targeting" 40%, vs beforehand pretty much assuring it, makes that a bit obvious. Plus, as I also stated, it depends how well devs support AMD's CPUs. Intel obviously has a huge share of that market now. It remains to be seen how much if any Zen will change that.

Do you think a person who buys an enthusiast grade hexa core on a premium platform with one of the highest end motherboards in a time when most people are still jerking to silly quad cores is the sort of a person who looks for affordable good value CPU? I think not. The same reason why I have a GTX 980 in my system and not a R7 260X or whatever they are named or GTX 950. They might be great value for average users, but I'm not an average user.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
5,731 (1.42/day)
Location
West Midlands. UK.
System Name Ryzen Reynolds
Processor Ryzen 1600 - 4.0Ghz 1.415v - SMT disabled
Motherboard mATX Asrock AB350m AM4
Cooling Raijintek Leto Pro
Memory Vulcan T-Force 16GB DDR4 3000 16.18.18 @3200Mhz 14.17.17
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ 4GB RX 580 - 1450/2000 BIOS mod 8-)
Storage Seagate B'cuda 1TB/Sandisk 128GB SSD
Display(s) Acer ED242QR 75hz Freesync
Case Corsair Carbide Series SPEC-01
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair VS 550w
Mouse Zalman ZM-M401R
Keyboard Razor Lycosa
Software Windows 10 x64
Benchmark Scores https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6220813
Do you think a person who buys an enthusiast grade hexa core on a premium platform with one of the highest end motherboards in a time when most people are still jerking to silly quad cores is the sort of a person who looks for affordable good value CPU? I think not. The same reason why I have a GTX 980 in my system and not a R7 260X or whatever they are named or GTX 950. They might be great value for average users, but I'm not an average user.

Jerking to silly quad cores... Lol you sound like a 12 year old man put your epeen away and stop waving it in people's faces... He may be wrong but you don't strengthen your point by saying hey look at my awesome rig, I'm right and you're wrong... Lol

I didn't read the whole point you two are arguing but the simple fact is that not you or anyone else knows how much improvement zen will have over bulldozer and arguing the toss about who's right or wrong is just retarded.

I hope they bring it, they either will or they won't.... Those are the only factual statements one can make at this time. And it will be bulldozer all over again if they don't... That's a big if either way....
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,583 (1.16/day)
System Name Virtual Reality / Bioinformatics
Processor Undead CPU
Motherboard Undead TUF X99
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory GSkill 128GB DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) EVGA RTX 3090 FTW Ultra
Storage Samsung 960 Pro 1TB + 860 EVO 2TB + WD Black 5TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL, HTC Vive
Case Fractal Design R5
Audio Device(s) BOSE 2.0
Power Supply Seasonic 850watt
Mouse Logitech Master MX
Keyboard Corsair K70 Cherry MX Blue
Software Windows 10 Professional/Linux Mint
Better performance, OC friendly, good power consumption and of course good pricing. Maybe I will change out wife's 5yr old laptop with one one these Zen platforms.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
13,791 (2.27/day)
Jerking to silly quad cores... Lol you sound like a 12 year old man put your epeen away and stop waving it in people's faces... He may be wrong but you don't strengthen your point by saying hey look at my awesome rig, I'm right and you're wrong... Lol

I didn't read the whole point you two are arguing but the simple fact is that not you or anyone else knows how much improvement zen will have over bulldozer and arguing the toss about who's right or wrong is just retarded.

I hope they bring it, they either will or they won't.... Those are the only factual statements one can make at this time. And it will be bulldozer all over again if they don't... That's a big if either way....

I had the exact same opinion when I had a quad core and everyone was jerking to dual cores... And there's another funny thing. Everyone measuring their epeens with IPC percentages, but I'm the problem when I mention cores. Like lol...
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
5,731 (1.42/day)
Location
West Midlands. UK.
System Name Ryzen Reynolds
Processor Ryzen 1600 - 4.0Ghz 1.415v - SMT disabled
Motherboard mATX Asrock AB350m AM4
Cooling Raijintek Leto Pro
Memory Vulcan T-Force 16GB DDR4 3000 16.18.18 @3200Mhz 14.17.17
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ 4GB RX 580 - 1450/2000 BIOS mod 8-)
Storage Seagate B'cuda 1TB/Sandisk 128GB SSD
Display(s) Acer ED242QR 75hz Freesync
Case Corsair Carbide Series SPEC-01
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair VS 550w
Mouse Zalman ZM-M401R
Keyboard Razor Lycosa
Software Windows 10 x64
Benchmark Scores https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6220813
I had the exact same opinion when I had a quad core and everyone was jerking to dual cores... And there's another funny thing. Everyone measuring their epeens with IPC percentages, but I'm the problem when I mention cores. Like lol...

Rest my case about you sounding like a 12 year old man.... cause you can afford more than some people makes your opinion better? I'm not having a dig btw just saying the whole "I have this many cores and 64GB RAMS, so I am better than you" thing comes off as douchey man, it's not relevant, same as jeb ends in BMW's who think they can drive like wankers and are better than other road users....

Again I haven't read the whole case in point you two were arguing just you seem a lot better than trying to prove a point because your HW is much better than the other guys... that don't mean jack :p

Now let's all wait for Zen and speculate and opinionate, no need to get into the whole my dads bigger than your dad, he said she said playground stuff is there :nutkick:
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
5,194 (1.35/day)
Processor Intel i7 950 @ 3.2GHz
Motherboard ASUS P6X58D-E
Cooling Corsair H50 push/pull
Memory Kingston HyperX 1600 8GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7970 OC
Storage Plextor M5P 128GB/WD Black 2x1TB,1x6TB/Seagate 1TB
Display(s) Panasonic TC-L32U3
Case Antec DF-85
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V371 AVR
Power Supply XFX 850w Black Edition
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software W10 Pro 64 bit
Do you think a person who buys an enthusiast grade hexa core on a premium platform with one of the highest end motherboards in a time when most people are still jerking to silly quad cores is the sort of a person who looks for affordable good value CPU? I think not. The same reason why I have a GTX 980 in my system and not a R7 260X or whatever they are named or GTX 950. They might be great value for average users, but I'm not an average user.

Good lord what does that have to do with anything I said? I can't keep going tit for tat with you if you keep going off on an off topic tangent, and it's not because I don't have anything relevant to say. Get relevant or I'll just have to ignore you like a dime a dozen mooty tooty.

He may be wrong but you don't strengthen your point by saying hey look at my awesome rig, I'm right and you're wrong... Lol
I'ts not that I'm wrong, it's that he has very weird, abstract ways of trying to prove his point. Some of which have zero to do with anything I've said.
I just hope it's enough to make a difference. Intel's just lumbering around smacking everybody with their dick at this point.
Yep, it's sad, and they don't even have to use a 2' purple dildo like in SR3.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
8,787 (2.15/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R7 3800X@4.350/525/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero7 @bios 2703/?
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu Monoblock Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in two sticks./16Gb
Video Card(s) Sapphire refference Rx vega 64 EK waterblocked/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power qlc nvmex3 in raid 0/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync, LG 49" 4K 60hz ,Oculus
Case Lianli p0-11 dynamic
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
People put too much weight on Ipc but if you add up all the plusses Amd can't go too far wrong ,new cores new fabric ,ddr4 and Smt 40% seams easy enough to me but I honestly expect it to be just ok initially ,I mean it's going to require some software tweaking no doubt ,ie benches ,will they run optimally??,not if Intel's compiler has anything to say about it.
 
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
1,952 (0.44/day)
Location
Bulgaria
System Name penguin
Processor R5 2400G
Motherboard Asrock B450M Pro4
Cooling Box
Memory 4 x Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz
Video Card(s) IGP
Storage ADATA SU800 512GB
Display(s) 27' LG
Case Zalman
Audio Device(s) stock
Power Supply Seasonic SS-620GM
Software win10
I think that if Skylike is twice as fast as Bulldozer, then Skylake is 100% faster. If Zen is 40% faster than Bulldozer, then Skylake is 60% faster then Zen. No?

Ugh you're right, I'm way off - note to self don't do math when low on caffeine. Let's try this again. We compare performance relative to a single Skylake core. The BD core has half the IPC. When we multiply that by 40%, we'd still be at 0.5 * 1.4, -> 0.7.

That would mean that in the best case scenario (according to AMD), a single ZEN core would be about 30% slower than a Sk core, as long as the frequencies of both remain relatively the same to one another. It kind of sounds like it'll perform somewhere around Sandy Bridge. I'd still consider that good, as long as the price is right.

from Anandtech: (btw how can I make the image smaller? )


Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge: Average ~5.8% Up
Ivy Bridge to Haswell: Average ~11.2% Up
Haswell to Broadwell: Average ~3.3% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR3): Average ~2.4% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR4): Average ~2.7% Up

The above is a bit generous. If we focus only on Cinebench ST improvements, performance increases only about ~22% from Sandy to Skylake, or in another way, Sandy's single core IPC is 82% that of Sk. ( 1/ 1.22)
 
Last edited:

CF_HERO_23

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
1 (0.00/day)
Wow... I see forum post like this I cringe... AMD P&CEO never said the word "Targeting" she did say that Zen was on track to deliver "Greater than 40% increase in IPC" Also at the financial investment day us stock holders were told that Zen clock for clock is twice as fast as an 8350. Seems like it's all looking great.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.79/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
Ugh you're right, I'm way off - note to self don't do math when low on caffeine. Let's try this again. We compare performance relative to a single Skylake core. The BD core has half the IPC. When we multiply that by 40%, we'd still be at 0.5 * 1.4, -> 0.7.

That would mean that in the best case scenario (according to AMD), a single ZEN core would be about 30% slower than a Sk core, as long as the frequencies of both remain relatively the same to one another.
Wouldn't it be easier to check single threaded CPU scores for relative IPC and just compare similar clock speeds between the architectures. Steamroller is clocked on par with Skylake, and is around 5-10% behind Excavator in IPC. The provided SKUs should offer a reasonable comparison (bearing in mind allowances for overall platform differences)
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
3,191 (1.52/day)
Location
Europe
System Name eazen corp | Xentronon 7.0
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3700X // PBO max.
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X570-Plus
Cooling Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 w/ AM4 kit // 3x Corsair AF140L case fans (2 blowing in, 1 out)
Memory G.Skill Trident Z RGB 2x16 GB DDR4 3600, CL16-19-19-32-48-1T, 1.4 V
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 // ~2000 MHz Core / 1476 MHz G5X
Storage Silicon Power P34A80 1TB NVME/Samsung SSD 830 128GB&850 Evo 500GB&F3 1TB 7200RPM/Seagate 2TB 5900RPM
Display(s) Samsung 27" Curved FS2 HDR QLED 1440p/144Hz&27" iiyama TN LED 1080p/120Hz / Samsung 40" IPS 1080p TV
Case Corsair Carbide 600C, inverted design case
Audio Device(s) HX Cloud Orbit S / Creative SB X AE-5 @ Teufel Concept F / Sony HD AVR @ PC & TV @ Teufel Theater 80
Power Supply EVGA 650 GQ // semi-passive mode on
Mouse Logitech G700 @ Steelseries DeX // XBox 360 Wireless Controller for Windows
Keyboard Corsair K70 LUX RGB Mechanical Keyboard /w Cherry MX Brown switches
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 10.498 Time Spy | P24.796 Firestrike | P31.547 3DM11 | X56.401 3DM Vantage Extreme
The 40% increase is related to Excavator not Bulldozer (this was actually clarified by AMD on one of their sheets). Therefore it's easily over SB IPC if it's true. AMD themselves stated 40% over Excavator or ~100% over Bulldozer (as in sheets). Seeing as the new CPU will have 8 real cores and 16 threads, compared to the 8 wannabe cores (or more like 4 cores / 8 threads in CMT) of Bulldozer i'd say that could be true.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,802 (1.68/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
Plus you guys are making it sound like Prescott actually hurt Intel as bad as Bulldozer did AMD. It wasn't even a scratch to them, let alone a huge impact. Lots of people were still playing on Northwoods, which held up fine well into Core 2 Duo release. Whereas AMD's Bulldozer disaster set them back quite a bit.

I fail to see the difference between the P4 and Bulldozer debacles. You make it sound as if no one is getting by on Bulldozer and Steamrollers. While they aren't as good by any stretch of the means, you can still accomplish any task perfectly fine with Bulldozers and Steamrollers. One reason Intel may not have been scratched during the P4 days is because of their strong-arming of OEMs that they had to go to court on.

EDIT: Anti-competitive practices rather, which may or may not have been horseshit. But somebody didn't think so.

NOTE: This is not an attack please don't treat it as such.

Being so far behind in ipc for cpu intensive applications means they simply won't be able to compete with the xeons.

There is more to performance than just IPC. IPC isn't a tell all indicator when comparing different architectures.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,110 (3.10/day)
Well, are Intel CPU's 40% better in IPC alone? I don't think there is such masive gap...
There actually isn't when it comes to core performance. However, AMD's current cache design hampers things a lot, which makes it equate to that roughly 40% give or take 10% in single-threaded applications. Just take a look at the difference in memory bandwidth at the same speed on DDR3, or on DDR4 with AMD APUs... it's half of what Intel manages with the exact same memory chips. All of the problems there add up to AMD being quite a bit slower than Intel, but at the same time, AMD isn't on the same node as Intel, so who cares? Only those that benchmark...

But, that doesn't matter, since Zen is supposed to be an entirely new core design. So whatever AMD did in the past doesn't matter.

To me, the telling thing is that they are "on track", which means they need to meet a yield expectation in order to offer such performance benefits. I said long ago that is was clear that AMD's "bulldozer" and such iterations were intended for 5 GHz, and in the end, that's the chips we got... 5 GHz. The only problem is that it took too long for yield to mature enough for them to bring in enough silicon at that clock speed. Intel's sitting fairly pretty with a core design that is destined for 4.6 GHz, as I also said in the past, and the years since SandyBridge have shown that 4.6 GHz as the average overclock users can expect with good chips. We know that Intel's silicon is much more advanced than AMD's (and I mean the sand; the wafers; not the chips), but as AMD has gotten access to better silicon, Intel seems to have been running into more and more problems...

If AMD can release a decently performing chip with 8 cores that matches a 4960X, but sells it on the cheap, they'll do really well. Time will tell what they get in the end... they don't make their silicon, they simply design stuff that utilizes other company's silicon, so you can't fault AMD if they miss their target because of poor yields... you blame their foundry partners. AMD doesn't blame others, though, as that's bad business.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.79/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
I fail to see the difference between the P4 and Bulldozer debacles.
Intel continued to thrive under Pentium 4, AMD's fortunes under Bulldozer...not so much. AMD's x86 server market share - thanks to the server orientated Bulldozer/Piledriver is at an all time low of less than 0.7% - the lowest figure since AMD entered the server market with the debut of Opteron in 2003.
Time will tell what they get in the end... they don't make their silicon, they simply design stuff that utilizes other company's silicon, so you can't fault AMD if they miss their target because of poor yields... you blame their foundry partners. AMD doesn't blame others, though, as that's bad business.
I'm not so sure about that. AMD has publicly laid blame at Globalfoundries door on more than a few occasions - well deserved given Glofo's rather creative predictions, but AMD haven't been shy in letting the market know why the volumes and top bin parts were M.I.A.
 
Last edited:
Top