drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
The January 17th is based on a rumour. AMD just says Q1.
I was expecting a NDA lift on this date. Although it could be later in Q1.
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.
The January 17th is based on a rumour. AMD just says Q1.
Pretty interesting comments by someone who saw the fps of the BF1 comparison.
Have you guys seen the pricing yet? Top end unlocked 8/16 raisin is $500, half what the 6900K is, yikes!
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_summit_ridge_cpu_pricing_leaked/1
The source is a random forum poster. Made up. So if it actually hit those prices it would be amazing.
If AMD sells a CPU for $500 that competes with Intel's $1000 CPU, then Intel will drop prices to match.
And there would be no winner. If AMD actually got a 1000$ CPU performance they are going to charge at least 800$. Else the CEOs head will be served on a platter before the next stock holder meeting.
But that reddit comment doesn't exactly seem to dictate a 1000$ performance.
Seems Zen will start from around 210$.
Well, that's my point. If they have a 6900K - level CPU, they're going to sell it for less than Intel, but not 50% less. They could sell them for $700-800 like you said, and they'd fly off the shelves. Well, "fly" relative to Intel's 8C/16T CPUs anyway. Now that might spur Intel to drop prices, so either way the consumer wins.
What's not known is how much it actually costs AMD to make those high end 8C/16T CPUs. Complex silicon, so probably not the greatest yields, and they have R&D costs to recoup.
Then again, I could be totally wrong. AMD might crank out these chips for <$100 each in cost and sell them for $500 in volume. This would totally destroy Intel's market, and AMD might be the new top dog for years to come.
From AMD? Never. They rarely allow gpu's to be reviewed nowadays.Yea, I think everyone wants a crack at it. We're like two months out from release. I can hardly remember the last time we got a concrete metric this far out with such a new comer.
And there would be no winner. If AMD actually got a 1000$ CPU performance they are going to charge at least 800$. Else the CEOs head will be served on a platter before the next stock holder meeting.
But that reddit comment doesn't exactly seem to dictate a 1000$ performance.
Seems Zen will start from around 210$.
I think a 6700K cost 15$ to make. Its not the manufactoring cost that's the thing. Its all the R&D. And Intel doesn't have to pay a 3rd party profit (GloFo).
So a price war AMD will always lose. That's one of the problems fighting an IDM.
Zen is going to pay for all AMDs future R&D. Hopefully the completed death starved GPUs as well.
I think a 6700K cost 15$ to make. Its not the manufactoring cost that's the thing. Its all the R&D. And Intel doesn't have to pay a 3rd party profit (GloFo).
So a price war AMD will always lose. That's one of the problems fighting an IDM.
Zen is going to pay for all AMDs future R&D. Hopefully the completed death starved GPUs as well.
2016 was a good year for AMD, the company has put back solid cashflow and that is important. The success of Zen and Vega even if on the greater picture we say that AMD takes 10% back from Intel Corp and 10% from NVidia, that corrolates into billions for AMD to distribute to R&D and that in turn puts out better products.
While Polaris took a while to settle, against the 900 series that it was designed to go against, it does well and the RX470 is probably the best affordable value for money card. Where I am from the 1050ti is the same price as the 470 Nitro 4GB OC and the 1050ti is not in the same league at all.
Not to digress, I am holding out that Zen looks more promising than I expected and hopefully AMD keeps heading in the right direction.
Well, keep in mind that AMD is also a much much leaner company. They don't have the overhead in armies of engineers salaries like Intel has.
That being said, Intel also has almost $18 billion in cash on hand, so they can afford to run at a loss short term in order to try to break AMD, and make sure they don't have the money to properly fund the development of Zen+
Well nobody likes to work for free, including AMD employees. Something some people tend to forget. Lisa Su also publicly said that she didn't want AMD to be the discount company. Aka she wants higher prices and margins.
They need higher margins, 30% for any company in any industry is too low, 40% good, 30% bad lol. The only reason a company would go that low is because they are getting killed in the marketplace. And this is what we saw the past 10 years. To get higher margins the node will help but not all of it, they need higher prices.
2016 cash flow is still in the red , at least so far.
I think a 6700K cost 15$ to make. Its not the manufactoring cost that's the thing. Its all the R&D. And Intel doesn't have to pay a 3rd party profit (GloFo).
So a price war AMD will always lose. That's one of the problems fighting an IDM.
Zen is going to pay for all AMDs future R&D. Hopefully the completed death starved GPUs as well.
Existing debts reflect that, but AMD made money this year, as a year it was green.
The old enemy of your enemy is your friend works for AMD here, right now Nvidia and Intel have emerged as the giant players in the same space, neither is capable to take on Samsung, Apple in the mobility market where the major money is at but both occupy major share in the PC market. Nvidia are still reliant on AMD and Intel X86 while Intel has now become dependant on relations with AMD in Graphics IP which will be profitable for AMD longterm given that Intel and Nvidia have burnt bridges a long time ago makes AMD, Intel's sole out from being completely locked out the GPU stakes. The impending head to head between the two giants lets AMD somewhat fly under radar, while helping themselves to market share.
I just like that AMD under Lisa Su has direction again, two years ago it looked like they were dead certain to liquidate, but she has done very well on limited resources to make sure AMD diverted its resources to investor friendly markets, what they need and we as the end user is a strong product to leverage back that much needed profits, as above AMD taking 20% of the combined share will not hurt Intel or Nvidia, but it would corrolate to billions for AMD.
Any large CPU/GPU is only going to be a few bucks in materials, true. The manufacturing cost is much, much higher though, it's probably on the order of at least $200 per CPU. If you have your own fab, you have to buy equipment, operate the clean room, pay workers, etc. If you don't have your own fab, you pay someone else. Then you need to QA those chips and deal with flaws. You can drop that cost when you start making them in large volumes of course, but you still have to deal with those costs.
Oh you mean Intel has something cooking that is great but decided to dump out Kaby Lake at a less then 2% gain in performance. Only thing good out Kaby Lake was for mobile.
Ultimately how long a company stays behind is based on its product. What I know know is AMD have enticing technology and bringing it together seems to be the focus of Zen/Vega, AMD also still appeals to growing market space.
In the absence of any imperical data, zen needed to check the boxes:
1) Cache subsystem needed to be considerably faster
2) IMC had to be considerably faster
3) IPC needs to yield substantial growth.
I believe the first two can be responsible on their own for up to 40% IPC gains that AMD targeted, if we assume that no company lays down bare minimum targets to exceed that AMD would need to re-do the entire arch which the did, they dropped CMT shared FPU design with deep pipelines for a SMT design and a more effient design. The part does not seem relient on clockspeed to produce results. My hope is for around Haswell/Devils Canyon type IPC with a much better scalablitity and SMT.
In short I feel a lot more comfortable with the first hurdle, given that Zambezi didn't come close to a mainstream i7 and barely got over an i5. CMT kind of saved them in high integer loads but that was overshadowed by extremely bad scaling
Is BF1 really that CPU Intensive?
I don't play Call of Modern Battlefield type games, bit I haven't run into a game in forever that couldn't maintain 60fps even on relatively modest CPU's.
Last one was probably Red Orchestra 2 on large 32 player maps back before it was patched to address hight CPU use, and that was in 2012.
No the main reason for the IPC gain, is FP unit changes, no longer hampering 50% of the ALU's, 50% of the ALU's were going unused in many circumstances.
Once that bottleneck was removed, then the other changes help it get more. I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the IPC increase was right from there.
Frostbite engines are intense, I had a G4400 ITX setup and it absolutely destroyed the G4400. Another game that surprisingly wrecked a G4400 was the Forest despite recommending a Core 2 , there is no way in hell a Core 2 runs the Forest.
That and Zambezi vs Sandy showed Zambezi's cache and IMC to be a third of a Sandy
That's true for "popcorn" chips, i.e., the smaller designs. Large CPUs and GPUs, especially as they're going to smaller and smaller feature sizes run into other problems and keep the costs up. Fewer total dies per wafer, just due to the design size. Fewer GOOD dies per wafer due to the feature size. More failures during packaging due to the higher pin counts.No, its quite cheap.
As someone once said. The first chip cost a billion, the next a penny. R&D is all the cost. You can also look at AMDs payments to Glofo, they are quite small. Last quarter they paid 284M$ and that includes a juicy margin to GloFo. And they got what in return for that? 20 million chips of various things?
Battlefield doesn't scale to well beyond 4 cores, Maybe a working DX12 will fix thatNot that intensive for an 8 core CPU.
As an AMD fan I am somewhat hesittent to outright committ to IPC as Blender tests SMT more than IPC, however I am far more comfortable with the possible level of IPC than I was. Do I think AMD wins, no only a fools hope at best, do I think AMD have a very good product yes and I would absolutely love to put a 4C/8T CPU into a ITX build. *holds thumbs it is a $150 part*
Kyle thanks for doing all the testing, that is at the 150 samples correct? I am looking forward to other tests in the future with this chip
Well, from what i see on screen it looks like within a second from live demo.Were you able to reproduce their results on your 6950x with two cores disabled at 150 samples?
Were you able to reproduce their results on your 6950x with two cores disabled at 150 samples?
Because I re-ran the benchmark with 150 samples, and I still have some serious doubts.
Well, from what i see on screen it looks like within a second from live demo.
Well, you are trying to match results from a different CPU architecture with less cores. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that hardware in relation to what AMD showed us this week.Huh. Then my results I posted in the other thread make absolutely no sense. (45.04s with the 150 sample file on my 3930k @ 4.8)
Blender must have some sort of funky core scaling issues going on for the results to wind up as they do.