Saw it 2 days ago! I hope they do 4GHz part soon...

If these results are legit it definitely looks promising.

Considering that AMD will make cheaper CPUs that wont have wasted die space on integrated graphics, this is looking like something I'll have in my future rig 😀

It's great to see AMD back in the saddle! 😁 Hopefully they'll be selling these CPUs at a competitive price. It'll be even better if they have an APU option.

I'll wait and see what will appear on the shelves, wouldn't be the first time someone didn't deliver what was expected (not looking at any single manufacturer here), but some better competition would be good for prices, performance and for consumerfriendlyness.

Looking dismal compared to a 5960x, half the speed at the same mhz.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1608543/guru3d-amd … st-intels-5960x

Yes I'm calling BS on these results, I am waiting until I see benchmarks with actual retail product.

Everything else I've seen on Zen leads me to believe it is going to be at least competitive. They are talking 16 and 32 core server parts, and 8 core consumer chips. If the 32 core server part is under $1000, I know what my next workstation is going to be based on.

http://wccftech.com/amd-monsterous-opteron-pr … -zen-x86-cores/

http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-cpu-performance-double-fx-8350/

http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-cpu-core-microarc … cture-detailed/

http://www.channelpro.co.uk/advice/9797/amd-z … enge-to-intel-8

More good news:
http://techreport.com/review/30540/amd-gives- … l-moment-of-zen

At least in Blender, a 3GHz 8c/16t Zen is slightly faster than a 3GHz 8c/16t Broadwell-E 6900K

Let's wait and see.

Don't hype yourself up from an article on WCCFtech, you're only setting yourself up for massive disappointment 😜.

F2bnp wrote:

Let's wait and see.

Don't hype yourself up from an article on WCCFtech, you're only setting yourself up for massive disappointment 😜.

True, very true. I'm taking a "wait-and-see" approach regardless. It's too soon to tell what actual performance is going to be like, and I don't really trust people with an agenda either way (with respect to fans and haters both).

If this is anything like Kuma "catching" up to Core2 2 years too late, it's going to be an overpriced, overheating, underperforming bundle of hype.

mockingbird wrote:

If this is anything like Kuma "catching" up to Core2 2 years too late, it's going to be an overpriced, overheating, underperforming bundle of hype.

except this time Jim Keller designed it, and he created the K7 and K8 which destroyed intel at the time.

candle_86 wrote:

mockingbird wrote:

If this is anything like Kuma "catching" up to Core2 2 years too late, it's going to be an overpriced, overheating, underperforming bundle of hype.

except this time Jim Keller designed it, and he created the K7 and K8 which destroyed intel at the time.

It didn't "destroy" Intel, and no single man designs anything... CPU design is an incredibly complex endeavour which requires a convergence of the efforts of very many skilled experts. AMD will always lag behind because the company stopped effecting good business practice and became a big bloated behemoth. Then they started overcharging for their stuff. Guess what... we don't need two Intels.

And K7 was plagued with chipset problems in its inception, to the extent that AMD stopped after Irongate and outsourced the chipset production to third parties.

AMD was never primarily a chipset company prior to the ATI purchase. I suspect they created the 750, 760, and 760MP chipsets more to open up the market for CPU sales than to generate revenue.

I think Zen will be decent, but Intel is not just going to sit idle. Half of their current chips are GPU, so Intel could release a 8 core 16 thread chip very easily. But I think it will make things more competitive which is always a good thing.

gdjacobs wrote:

AMD was never primarily a chipset company prior to the ATI purchase. I suspect they created the 750, 760, and 760MP chipsets more to open up the market for CPU sales than to generate revenue.

That's beside the point.

You can't create a CPU with a buggy chipset and then declare yourself a success because your product is theoretically more economical. AMD owes its later success almost only to the fact that people saw them as the underdog. Now they're not the underdog anymore. They have half or more than half of the GPU market, and Intel only does CPUs.

If they want people to buy their CPUs they're going to have to give them a darn good reason to. So far, they've been completely unable to match Intel for the past several years and their CPU platform is extremely stale. If they think that this is 1999 all over again and people are going to flock to them like they did back then so that they can pay the pensions of their retiring engineers then they have something else coming.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

I think Zen will be decent, but Intel is not just going to sit idle. Half of their current chips are GPU, so Intel could release a 8 core 16 thread chip very easily. But I think it will make things more competitive which is always a good thing.

I fully agree with that. Even if it's not a comeback to the Athlon XP/Athlon 64 days, I just hope it does well enough to keep Intel on its toes. Not only lower prices would be welcome, but also a truly noticeable performance increase in CPU power is long overdue. Nothing since the C2D has been really a game changer IMO.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

I think Zen will be decent, but Intel is not just going to sit idle. Half of their current chips are GPU, so Intel could release a 8 core 16 thread chip very easily. But I think it will make things more competitive which is always a good thing.

Already did, 6900k, and 10 core 6950k, been available for awhile.

If Zen is fast enough and the price is right, it's a sure buy from me. I'm not looking for the fastest, but I still want hefty CPU performance.

I'd be more than happy to support the underdog to be honest.