All we really know is it has lots of threads and can run Doom. I'm skeptical of it matching anything recent from Intel on that important per core performance or scaling well down to 5W like Intel can. It should be a nice improvement over lame duck Bulldozer relatives though.

How far can it (Zen) do PCem? 😀

I'm expecting that it will probably end up having something similar to Sandy Bridge IPC, better power efficiency, while offering 8-core CPUs at or slightly below the price of Intel's current high-end 4-core consumer CPUs.
I think that will be enough to make it an exciting CPU for many people.
However I don't think it's going to replace Intel for people that want the fastest CPU for gaming regardless of cost. (currently an overclocked Intel 4-core CPU)
Zen CPUs might start to take some of Intel's lower-end CPU marketshare if you can get a 4-core Zen for the price of a 2-core i3, or a 6-core Zen for the price of a lower-end 4-core i5.

It might have decent price/performance, but it won't be fast. AMD are alright for acceptable low end computing with decent integrated graphics, but not at high performance. They also have some very nice low end APUs for embedded systems.

I wouldn't touch anything other than Intel and Nvidia for a desktop PC these days. They're faster, driving standards, and generally more compatible.

In my opinion that will be totally dissappointment because they show only pictures/movies but don`t show test results, so they making hype and propably lying about perfomance which aren`t good. I was thinking about buying something from AMD because I like their CPU socket which is far normal than in boards for Intel CPU`s, but sometimes boards for Intel is little better, now I buy something from Intel, even after ZEN realase. AMD with that bad decisions will die like Commodore and 3dfx.

Tiger433 wrote:

AMD with that bad decisions will die like Commodore and 3dfx.

I've been hearing that since I assembled my first custom-built PC with a 486 DX4/120. Back then it was "... but the Pentium... !!!"

(Yeah, I eventually upgraded to a Pentium. I still have it too!)

(No, I don't still have the AMD 486 DX4/120. Twenty years later, I'm still kickin' myself in the ass over that...)

I truly believe that AMD's going to surprise everyone with a Zen that totally rocks!

I believe their processors ZEN will be like K6-2 compared to Pentium II/III and nothing more.

I have an FX 8320 turned 8350 with some undervolt and I've been pretty happy with it for the most part. I do want more single-thread performance though, so I will be looking into Zen. I think the most optimistic views on Zen is that it will land at around Haswell performance, which IMO is pretty darn good.

If the price and performance is right, then I'll definitely go with Zen over Intel. Otherwise, I can only hope Zen's release will drive prices down on competing products from Intel 😉.

Given the amount of time AMD had, I don't see how Zen could not be competitive 😀

Still, history has shown that buying launch hardware for AMD can be an "interesting" experience 😊

They relied on K7 derivatives for a decade while trying to build something from scratch and finally arriving at wonderful Bulldozer. 😉

Honestly, everything anyone has to say is completely speculative. I've owned lots of AMD and Intel processors. I felt like they were competitive until the first Intel Core generation and Intel pulled away. I am still a fan and I have high hopes for Xen. I can also see how people would be pessimistic as to it's chances. I'll just wait and see and hope. I will always root for the underdog to the extent that I can.

Here's hoping that they thoroughly validate it and don't have anything horrible come up after the fact, like with the Phenom TLB bug that required a performance killing workaround. Money is so tight over at AMD these days, and so many people have left, that I wonder if they can really pull off a major processor R&D effort.

Rhuwyn wrote:

Honestly, everything anyone has to say is completely speculative.

Indeed. I haven't commented on Zen anywhere yet, because I simply don't have enough info to make anything other than wild guesses. And what's the point in doing that?

Rhuwyn wrote:

I will always root for the underdog to the extent that I can.

I only root for the underdog when the underdog is worth supporting. AMD's Bulldozer was so bad, that it made no sense to support it at all (and Polaris seems to be a very similar case). You'd no longer be 'supporting the underdog', you're rewarding failure. And that's where I draw the line.

Scali wrote:

And what's the point in doing that?

so people can quote you on the basis of "this person is expert" and do the usual xkcd #386 cycle because you made a guess

leileilol wrote:

Scali wrote:

And what's the point in doing that?

so people can quote you on the basis of "this person is expert" and do the usual xkcd #386 cycle

Heh, last time (Bulldozer), things went the other way around...
AMD *did* release detailed data on the architecture early (eg how they shared certain resources, and how they'd have 2 ALUs per thread etc)... And I said "That's not going to work, because current CPUs have more ALUs per thread, and well-optimized software already uses more than 2 ALUs per cycle. So there's no way they can match the IPC of Phenom/Core". I made that statement about a year before release, because I was 100% sure of it.
Then for a year I got attacked by tons of fanboys on how I'm wrong... Quoting shit from John Fruehe on the basis of "this person is expert".... Until Bulldozer was finally released and reviewed, and obviously I was 100% correct.
But I don't think anyone then started to quote me ont he basis of "this person is expert". I still got attacked by fanboys 😀

On 4chan's /g/ board, "wait for Zen" has become a huge meme. 🤣 I hope Zen is a good architecture, since Intel's been whipping the shit out of AMD in single threaded performance for the last several years.

I do like Intel's core processors, cant stand its fanboys though, and i'm not referring to Scali 😀

i'm referring to those who come in any AMD user's topic and just shit on their buying decisions (without any context of financial situations and the like). they're always out there......

I still think the Phenom II was the last good AMD processor.

leileilol wrote:

I still think the Phenom II was the last good AMD processor.

Last AMD CPU I used in my main machine when it was modern was an AMD Athlon X2 4400+. I just picked up a Phenom II X4 though and am thinking of making it either my main retro Windows XP system...or might put Windows 7 on it not sure yet.

Scali wrote:

I only root for the underdog when the underdog is worth supporting. AMD's Bulldozer was so bad, that it made no sense to support it at all (and Polaris seems to be a very similar case). You'd no longer be 'supporting the underdog', you're rewarding failure. And that's where I draw the line.

I don't disagree which is why I qualified it with a "to the extent that I can". Obviously, if there is little or nothing redeeming about a CPU it is what it is. For Zen to be successful it to compete with Intel's performance at a lower price point. Period.