Looks like AMD is poised for a comeback. I'm especially intrigued by the bit where they note it beat the Intel chip with the turbo boost off:
http://hothardware.com/news/amd-to-attack-per … etails-revealed
Zen release video:
I've always been a huge AMD fan and generally an advocate for the underdog. Preferred them from the original Athlon all the way still the Phenom X4. So glad to finally see something new.
They spanked an Intel cpu in the demo by 10% with no turbo enabled. The intel chip comes in at double the price. They didn't give pricing info but rumored at $500 for 8 core.
They just did a Vega demo. They are going to spank the hell out of Intel and Nvidia both. No more $4k Xeons and $1500 consumer enthusiast graphics.
The little chip maker that could. I love those guys. 😀
"A little sign-in here, a touch of WiFi there..."
I am really really hoping for a 16 or 32 core RhyZen for something not too crazy. Would be nice to see this pricing:
8 core chip: $500
16 core chip: $800
32 core: $1200-$1600
That would really put the hurt on Intel. But they may price their CPUs just 10-20% less than an Intel part so they can finally start making some money.
But if Vega comes out at $400-$500 that's going to be a strong competitor for Nvidia.
What do you need so many cores for? Aside from Ashes of the singularity no other game uses more than 4 cores.
AMD Ryzen seems promising but there is also too much hype floating around. Let's hope it all goes well for AMD. Competition is good for end users.
Intel i7 5960X
Gigabye GA-X99-Gaming 5
8 GB DDR4 (2100)
8 GB GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming (Gigabyte)
Painful detail:
In another demo, we got to play a bit of Battlefield 1 running with ultra settings at 4K on the RYZEN and 6900K-based system, each with a pair of GeForce GTX Titan X cards installed in SLI.
I didn't know AMD made GeForce GTX Titan X cards 😀
Meh. I'll wait for the real reviews. Marketing BS always annoys me.
Already seeing beats Nvidia @ 60fps in Doom 4!!!!!! with no mention of settings used which always sets off alarm bells.
Comparing to a $1,000 Intel processor is nice but somehow I doubt most people are paying for $1,000 processors.
I recently build my new computer with a 6700k which is like $450 and the average PC builder probably wouldn't even spend that much.
Especially comparing to an Intel processor with Turbo off - that's one of the major performance boosters. Half of Intel's CPUs "rated" speeds aren't ever actually run at that speed, they always run at a higher turbo speed. I'll wait for independent reviews.
That said, anything that forces Intel to innovate again is good. The last time AMD really started rocking, Intel shifted from NetBurst to Core...
Edit: Er, wait, it was the AMD that had turbo off, not the Intel, that's a bit more impressive...
They are actually on schedule. Cheap Zen Quads when?
wrote:They are actually on schedule.
Either that, or they had to rush some show for the press because Kaby Lake.
wrote:What do you need so many cores for? Aside from Ashes of the singularity no other game uses more than 4 cores.
it's foolish to believe that the only demanding tasks for computers are games.
You have things like F@H, rendering, VM's and heavy server workloads.
The performance is not OMG FREKIN AMAZIN but considering the state they were this is pretty good. They won't beay Kaby Lakes but they don't need to either.
Intel with all their 14nm optimizations can procure faster clock speeds. They'll have a new architecture only on 2018 which will be already the 2nd iteration of a 10nm process. Hard to beat. So i'm really curious to see with what AMD can do with ZEN + cores, both in performance uplifts and how much time until they deliver it. If they somehow can release ZEN+ cores around the time Intel releases Icelake that will be impressive. If Intel keeps only improving 5% on the IPC front and performance uplift of ZEN + is around 15% then Intel can only play the higher frequency/ better TDP card. So maybe we say a breakthrough in Icelake, after years of 5% IPC uplifts by Intel.
wrote:wrote:They are actually on schedule.
Either that, or they had to rush some show for the press because Kaby Lake.
Kaby Lake is the most "meh" release ever. They basically overclocked Skylake. IPC is exactly the same.
"A little sign-in here, a touch of WiFi there..."
wrote:Especially comparing to an Intel processor with Turbo off - that's one of the major performance boosters. Half of Intel's CPUs "rated" speeds aren't ever actually run at that speed, they always run at a higher turbo speed. I'll wait for independent reviews.
That said, anything that forces Intel to innovate again is good. The last time AMD really started rocking, Intel shifted from NetBurst to Core...
Edit: Er, wait, it was the AMD that had turbo off, not the Intel, that's a bit more impressive...
Sorry if my wording was confusing, but the AMD turbo boost was off, the Intel chip's was on. Meaning the Intel chip was already running as fast as it could go but the AMD was still beating it without AMD having its boost feature turned on. That's a good chip.
wrote:What do you need so many cores for? Aside from Ashes of the singularity no other game uses more than 4 cores.
AMD Ryzen seems promising but there is also too much hype floating around. Let's hope it all goes well for AMD. Competition is good for end users.
I do computer graphics as a hobby. I would kill for a 32 or 64 core system that cost $2000 instead of $10,000-$20,000.
wrote:wrote:wrote:They are actually on schedule.
Either that, or they had to rush some show for the press because Kaby Lake.
Kaby Lake is the most "meh" release ever. They basically overclocked Skylake. IPC is exactly the same.
You forgot to look at TDP. They get the same IPC at lower power consumption, so they boosted performance-per-watt. As a result, they dialed down the TDP somewhat, and gave their CPUs a few hundred MHz boost.
All that at the same (or lower?) price.
The point is, if AMD doesn't say "We're coming out with a new CPU soon, so don't upgrade just yet", people will buy Kaby Lake (it doesn't have to be the greatest upgrade ever), and Zen will be too little, too late.
Zen will be too little, too late anyway. Intel has artifically been limiting mainstream CPUs to 4 cores for many years now. If AMD wants to compete with 8-cores, then Intel can just bring their 8-cores into the mainstream market. Intel goes all the way up to 22 cores (and 44 threads) anyway, so it's not like AMD is going to close the technological gap with Intel anytime soon.
AMD is in the same position that they were 10 years ago when Core2 came out.
In the end, they released their product 2 years too late, when Intel had already captured most of the laptop segment, and for too high a price. It also ran too hot.
The question is, will they again make their prices so high as to discourage anyone from buying it?
Knowing how bloated and bureaucratic the company has become, they probably will.
Not to mention that they'll be missing their release date for Zen, with nary a single AM4 motherboard to be found in the market.
Great job AMD. AMD is no longer serving as a competitor to Intel who helps to lower the prices, but rather who serves as a drain on the market and a force that increases the prices of CPUs, by forcing end users to subsidize their existence.
(Decommissioned:)
