jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,566
I think Zen is going to put Intel out of business for good.
Oh I agree. Intel is so fucked.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think Zen is going to put Intel out of business for good.
1. IPC isn't the end all of CPU performance.
3. Everyone is talking about the CPU only,
1. IPC isn't the end all of CPU performance.
2. 40% IPC gain at the same clock rate, could be a number of things.
3. Everyone is talking about the CPU only, honestly I'm more interested in what its chipset can do how many pci-e lanes, channels of ram, sata ports, etc etc,
4. People are saying AMD Zen core will be lucky to match Sandy Bridge. I woefully disagree
I will make a series of statements. You can agree or disagree.
1. IPC isn't the end all of CPU performance. It is when you are talking about pure single thread. Multi-core scaling is still very important. It is very possible for a AMD cpu with 16 threads to be beaten in single thread and perform better in multi threaded and vice versa.
2. 40% IPC gain at the same clock rate, could be a number of things. It can be 40% better in this one benchmark, it could be on average 40% better, and lastly it could be at least 40% better over Excavator in all areas. Making it really pointless to say only 40%. Another thing to note is AMD themselves say the IPC is 40% better than excavator, so carrizo? which is only a mobile processor without l3. The piledriver Fx cpu IPC is higher than kaveri or carrizo, thanks to l3 and higher clocks.
3. Everyone is talking about the CPU only, honestly I'm more interested in what its chipset can do how many pci-e lanes, channels of ram, sata ports, etc etc,
4. People are saying AMD Zen core will be lucky to match Sandy Bridge. I woefully disagree, keep in mind Sandy Bridge was produced on 32nm tech. AMD with Zen will be on 14nm. If the Zen core is as fast as sandy bridge in IPC then AMD would be entirely too naive to bring it to market and expect good things. Anything less than Haswell will be a disappointment.
5. Honestly the biggest excitement is on the mobile side of things. AMD laptops have lacked serious cpu horsepower for quite some time now. Intel has huge price gaps between their i3, i5 and i7 lines, with the introduction of a more competitive Zen chip these price gaps will be smoothed out. Intel will no longer be able to command a 200$ increase in price for each segment.
I will make a series of statements. You can agree or disagree.
2. 40% IPC gain at the same clock rate, could be a number of things. It can be 40% better in this one benchmark, it could be on average 40% better, and lastly it could be at least 40% better over Excavator in all areas. Making it really pointless to say only 40%. Another thing to note is AMD themselves say the IPC is 40% better than excavator, so carrizo? which is only a mobile processor without l3. The piledriver Fx cpu IPC is higher than kaveri or carrizo, thanks to l3 and higher clocks.
Oh I agree. Intel is so fucked.
lmao. I can't believe anyone thinks anything AMD or any ARM partner could do would put Intel out of business.
Power consumption is an issue for some people. If you get near Intel performance but need 150+W to do it, then people will still end up with Intel.
Personally, I'm hoping they pull a rabbit out of their hats because I'd love to go back to AMD.
If the motherboards are as fully-featured as their competitor's platforms, then pricing can be consistent between them and it would still be a win.
That is exactly what I am interested in. I am looking for an upgrade from an i7 970. However I will not sacrifice single threaded performance. The upgrade must have both improved single threaded performance and improved multithreaded performance.
You may be surprised how many people still buy AMD cause "OMGZZZZ 8 COREZZZ" for gaming...
and you tell them how much power and heat and they have no clue cause mommy and daddy pay the bills.
Probably true to a point... but some people just want raw power. They might not be leaving their computer on and only use it for gaming. So it could be a hog, but the hogging would be for like an hour or 2.
Will Zen compete with Haswell in October 2016 and be only (let me count, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, Kaby Lake) only four generations behind Intel, assuming it doesn't get delayed into Cannonlake territory in 2017? What's stopping Intel from lowering the prices on whatever Zen does end up competing with, since that will be anywhere from two to four generations behind anyway?
At one point, DEC, MIPS and others never thought Intel could dethrone them in the server market. ARM based servers are now filling the low to medium end roles once occupied by Intel servers. Intel has more cost flexibility than DEC or other platforms had back in the day. So Intel isn't vulnerable in the same way, but I've seen the seemingly impossible happen in a few short years in the two decades I've been in the industry.
But I'd hardly call Intel fucked at this point.
Will Zen compete with Haswell in October 2016 and be only (let me count, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, Kaby Lake) only four generations behind Intel, assuming it doesn't get delayed into Cannonlake territory in 2017? What's stopping Intel from lowering the prices on whatever Zen does end up competing with, since that will be anywhere from two to four generations behind anyway?
If they're buying a Bulldozer based PC for raw power today (unless we're talking about strictly power consumption), they're doing it wrong. Even an i5 3570 is faster in 90-95% of programs and uses less than two thirds the power.
Zarathustra[H];1041875701 said:Agreed.
Even an i3 is faster than a max overclocked FX-8350 in many applications, especially where per thread performance is important.
It's difficult to express how far behind AMD really is with their current line of CPU's.
I mean, we are talking about them making a leap of 40% over their current designs over a year from now, and still only catching up with where Intel was 5 years ago...
Zarathustra[H];1041875701 said:Agreed.
Even an i3 is faster than a max overclocked FX-8350 in many applications, especially where per thread performance is important.
It's difficult to express how far behind AMD really is with their current line of CPU's.
I mean, we are talking about them making a leap of 40% over their current designs over a year from now, and still only catching up with where Intel was 5 years ago...
Well let's not get carried away. My wife's rig sports a i3 and both my rig (sig) and my boy's rig running a Phenom II x6 1090 run circles around it. I don't run synthetic benchmarks so maybe an i3 will really shine in those but in real world use of a PC (web surfing, photo editing, word processing), I'll take an 8350 over an i3 any day. I totally agree they're way behind the game right now but let's not go crazy saying they can't even keep up with a dual core.
Well let's not get carried away. My wife's rig sports a i3 and both my rig (sig) and my boy's rig running a Phenom II x6 1090 run circles around it. I don't run synthetic benchmarks so maybe an i3 will really shine in those but in real world use of a PC (web surfing, photo editing and word processing often at the same times while listening to iTunes), I'll take an 8350 over an i3 any day. I totally agree they're way behind the game right now but let's not go crazy saying they can't even keep up with a dual core.
Zarathustra[H];1041863137 said:Ok. Lets look at the benchmarks.
Since single threaded performance is really the best indicator of how well a CPU does overall, I'm going to go on over to Anandtech.com/bench and look at their single threaded benchmarks.
First up, Cinebench R15 Single Threaded score.
Since its sorted by performance, lets just scroll down until we find the first AMD product on the list shall we? Oh there it is, the FX-9590, more than halfway down the list. A $300 CPU, fire breathing 4.7Ghz 220W CPU and the most beastly thing AMD's got, and... it's beaten by Intel's budget 55W Pentium G2130.
Overall it places between the Pentium G2130 and G2030.
Halo CPU beaten by competitors budget CPU's. Not pretty.
This is a newer benchmark so the FX-6300 or FX-8230 are not on the list.
Lets look them up in the Cinebench R10 Single Threaded Score, it has some older models.
Here the FX-9590 does a little better, not placing that far behind an i7-3820. it also places behind an i3-2100...
The 6300 is WAY further down, falling behind the Intel Core 2 Duo E8600, a chip considered obsolete by most people today.
The 8320? It does even worse. It even finishes behind the AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE, a chip a CPU launched in late 2010, based on an architecture launched in mid 2009...
OK, so maybe Cinebench just favors the Intel architecture. Let's try something else that's single threaded...
How about Anand's 3D Particle Movement data..
Lol. Here the top performing AMD Chip is not the FX-9590, but rather the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T BE, falling below the Intel i3-4130
If we go looking for the two chips you like so much, the 6300 is not on the list, the 8230 is there though, and it only just nudges out the Intel Atom C2750!!! lol.
Only two single threaded benchmarks left in the suite...
Windows 8 - POV-Ray 3.7RC6 - Single Threaded
There are fewer chips on this list, but here the FX-8350 is beaten by an i3-3220, and the 6300 and 8230 are further down the list.
And then there's Cinebench R11.5 which shows results very much like the other cinebench revisions...
The truth is, even in the low price market, AMD is completely outclassed by Intel in their current products. There was a time where the price argument still worked in their favor, when you could pick up a dual core Phenom II, unlock two cores and overclock the shit out of it, and get fairly close to an Intel chip, but the current comparison is really just sad.
Sure, some benchmarks can make up for the lack of single threaded performance by multithreading, but the truth is that even in 2015, most content just doesn't.
I'm a huge AMD fan, and I am really hoping they can come back, but as it stands, I wouldn't recommend an AMD chip even to a budget builder today. I'd tell them to forget about the FX-8230 or FX-6300 and get a mid range Haswell core i3 for the same price.
I can hear it now. I'm an Intel shill, and I cherry picked the benchmarks, yada yada yada...
Truth is, I picked ALL the single threaded benchmarks I could find, because single threaded is still the most important performance indicator.
I'm also a huge AMD fan. I owned nothing but AMD chips from the launch of the first Duron in 2000 until 2009 when I got an i7-920. I even bought a Phenom II 1090T in 2010 when I was waiting to swap in a bulldozer when they launched, and then was disheartened by how much bulldozer sucked, and bought my current 3930k system.
Since out of order execution was added Atom isn't the chump it used to be. Lest ye forget that the ALUs to Bulldozer and descendants are 2-issue wide, at least on the INT side.
Exactly what i stated before, AMD cannot compete with Intel, and should not even aim to.
But Zen can definitely be a viable alternative if it has Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Performance, with more cores than an i5 and priced a little below the new 6600k.
I don't think we will see ZEN high end PCs in best buy, but we could surely see people thinking about it before buying the 6600k.
I think most people don't even consider AMD anymore because of the FX Chips
Zarathustra[H];1041875920 said:Interesting. I haven't looked into Atom's in a long time.
I wonder then how a modern dual core atom would perfom comapred to - say - my dual core broadwell Celeron at 1.4Ghz.
Zarathustra[H];1041875920 said:Interesting. I haven't looked into Atom's in a long time.
I wonder then how a modern dual core atom would perfom comapred to - say - my dual core broadwell Celeron at 1.4Ghz.
While ARM is starting to push in the server market, it will probably hurt AMD more than Intel.
Intel now has mid/low end Xeon Cpus to take on ARM while AMD has nothing. Plus Intel's reliability is second to none, its like Intel lasts forever. ARM has to prove itself in that regard.
It took decades for Intel to become the leader in the server market. Surely they won't let it go without a fight.
Not really K12 was just another in long series of wunderwaffe desings that were suppossed to be shortcut to succes.
At least with Zen they seem to be back to roots.
Yeah, people swore up and down that K12 was faster than Zen, but the reality is that it's not THAT much faster.
People always claim ARM will run amok in the server room. They point to all those RISC processors that Intel defeated back in the 90s. But the difference then is that Intel was not just better, they were compatible with software most people used every day IN THE OFFICE, AND AT HOME.
In a world where each major application family had it's own EXPENSIVE closed hardware ecosystem AND OS, x86 plus DOS plus Netware (and later Windows NT) had a lot going for it. And since Intel plus their competitors (AMD, Cyrix) had a large product lineup by 1995, you really could get a 32-bit PC at almost any price point.
ARM can't be THAT fast or cheap because there's not enough of a performance overhead in x86, and they can't make inroads on the compatibility front because there is none. People don't use their smart phones to get real work done, just to communicate.
Once we standardized on x86 for everything, you'd pretty-much have to be compatible to have a chance to compete.
Zarathustra[H];1041875873 said:I would disagree.
My work laptop is a 1.8Ghz dual core (albeit with HT) i5-3427U with turbo up to 2.8Ghz. I can't tell any difference in desktop responsiveness between it, my desktop at home (i7-3930k, 6 cores with HT @4.8Ghz), the rig I built for my stepson from spare parts (FX-8350) or my old HTPC (A10-7850K)
(I do notice a difference on my new HTPC, a Chromebox Broadwell dual core Celeron @ 1.4Ghz though)
Desktop responsiveness really isn't that dependent on CPU power. it's more dependent on how much RAM you have and how fast your drives are. Slap 8GB of RAM and an SSD in most computers and they feel more or less the same on the desktop.
I don't buy dual core CPU's for desktops, but I do use single threaded benchmarks as a predictor for how capable an architecture is, as you really can't count on multithreading for all applications, but if you have fast threads, they will be fast in everything.
I recently did this comparison in another thread, after someone suggested that FX-6300 and FX-8320 chips were better bang for the buck chips than lower end Intel chips.
I knew things were bad for AMD, but where I really was shocked was that the FX-8320 performed similarly to the Atom C2750 in the 3d particle computation test I was not expecting that at all.
ARM can't be THAT fast or cheap because there's not enough of a performance overhead in x86, and they can't make inroads on the compatibility front because there is none. People don't use their smart phones to get real work done, just to communicate.