AMD Zen Performance Preview

Shintai said:
Speed difference between 128b and 256b.
Click to expand...
You are still cooking up consiparacy. You can if this then that all you want. No one really knows. You will get full set of benches when the processor is out. No doubt about that. I am sure it will be slower than Haswell overall. But I have no doubt it will be a step in the right direction for AMD something they desperately need.
 
Shintai said:
Speed difference between 128b and 256b.
Click to expand...

If you refer to The Stilt's build, you actually get very good performance boost with excavator chips aswell. If you were worried that zen will stuggle under that load? I can't post links as I just register here today.
 
It may just turn out that AMD will win some or tie and Intel will do the same. I think Dan was correct in clockspeed has a big factor overall especially for gaming machines. While Ryzen may make a better chip for rendering, video encoding over an I7 7700K but for gaming the 7700K may hold a favor for those looking for over 60fps gaming. We will see.

Now this benchmark is with a Ryzen that is not OC nor using Turbo (which for rendering I don't think Turbo will do much) but the auto OCing feature may really make this a very interesting chip. Plus the 6 core version maybe more OCing friendly that will compete well with the 4 core I7 7700K.
 
bobzdar said:
All of the passwords were reset and if you had an old email attached to it,you had to email Kyle to get a new one. I had the same problem but luckily remembered my user name so got a new password. Shoot him an email with your old user name and what you suspect the email address attached to it is.
Click to expand...

You sure that wasn't the SECOND cull? I could've sworn I re-registered my entire account, from scratch in 2004 - not just a pass reset.
 
AbRASiON said:
You sure that wasn't the SECOND cull? I could've sworn I re-registered my entire account, from scratch in 2004 - not just a pass reset.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely not sure, that was over 13 years ago so I can't remember. If his original account was prior to that and he hadn't returned in over 10 years then yeah, probably no bringing back the original :). I don't know if 2003 was when I first signed up here or was when I had to re-make my account or something, too long ago to remember. But if he regestered June 2003, that's alse when I apparently registered (or re-registered) and I'm not aware of a purge since then.
 
Doward said:
One reason I'm considering Zen vs Skylake-E, is ability to upgrade the CPU across generations, without buying an entire new motherboard. I'd be happy with Broadwell-E levels of performance.
Click to expand...
Not that I totally disagree with you, but Broadwell-E is the second generation that X99 supports. The B, H, and Z series would be more appropriate targets for your derision.
 
Meeho said:
That wouldn't be so bad since there have been minimal gains in the last two.
Click to expand...

I can almost guarantee you, that due to lack of competition for almost a decade now, that Intel is sitting on new tech that they are waiting to roll out when they finally actually need to, to remain on top. Otherwise, they're really sitting on their asses recently as well, and STILL not getting any competition. Maybe now that changes, but I can't imagine Intel R&D doesn't have SOMETHING up their sleeve to up the ante again once AMD actually starts matching their current offering.

I do hope I'm wrong, this lack of competition hurts us all - and is definitely a driving force behind Intel releasing extremely small, incremental updates for years now, I'd bet. They're just playing the smart game though, if so... why release your newest tech when you're still the performance king, so that it can be (sometimes) copied by the competition? The smart business move would be to hold on to the innovation(s) until there is reason to, and then blow AMD out of the water again for years while they play catch up.
 
Dullard said:
Yeah, I have one of those 3.0GHz chips, been running at 4.6GHz for over a year. If Zen can pull off a 50%+ OC, then it'll be a real contender.
Click to expand...

Really? I had no idea there were still processors out there that OC'd so well! 50% is crazy. I totally was not impressed with that processor since so many things still rely most on single thread & high clock speed - but if it OC's that well, that's tempting... What kind of cooling are you using? Any other tricks to get such a great OC out of that model?
 
NKD said:
You really should invest in a real monitor like gsync. You demand the best but you are not really doing your system a justice if you don't have that. Keeping your framerate high is one thing but if you don't have gsync with that Titan XP its unacceptable in itself with that setup. That will give you the game play experience you are looking and you will have no stutters.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, except there really are NO good G-Sync monitors out there for someone like me. Passable, but very expensive? Sure. But if I'm going to spend $800-$1300 on a 28"-34" monitor, I want it to have more than G-sync and a shit backlight and panel. That's the problem, even the most expensive, best G-Sync monitors out there have significant quality issues, backlight bleed, and poor image quality compared to say, a price-comparable LED 4K HDR TV.

Now, if you're the type that prefers FPS and refresh rate above all else (and therefore, like TN panels in your monitors), you can find good g-sync ones. But all I really ask for is 60 Hz / FPS these days, I'm not a pro eSports player, and I prefer image quality over super high refresh rates. If the best of both worlds existed, I'd be all over it, but it does not.

I've been looking at G-Sync for years, but none are acceptable yet that have a nice panel in them. Then there is HDR, which none have yet either. So I greatly prefer my KS9000 Samsung 4K HDR TV with 10-bit color. I waited, and waited, for a good gsync model to come out, and one hasn't even been announced yet that I know of, let alone is on the market long enough to suss out the overall quality and if there are any design flaws (which the best IPS panel G-Sync monitors all have - yellow tint issues, backlight issues, and poor color reproduction and image quality. AND no HDMI ports, so no using them with your game consoles or other devices.
 
tangoseal said:
This | if this is true.. If AMD can just swing up a few rungs higher and get closer then that will signal to me and millions of others that they are closing the gap and may one day over take Intel as the performance king again. Long time coming.
Click to expand...

It's not going to happen. Look at the management of AMD, they're among the worst in the industry. Look at how they spend 1/10th of what their competition does on R&D. How are they ever going to catch up? If they do, it'll not only be a miracle, but will be an accident!

Believe me, I wish they were competitive so we'd all have the best products at the best prices from all involved. As it is, Intel and NVIDIA can charge top dollar for small incremental improvements (Intel is worse about this than NVIDIA, in general, so far).
 
rgMekanic said:
To get the people like me, the SB guys, the Haswell guys, who are fed up with shit improvements every year to upgrade?
Click to expand...

I'm one of those guys too, but we're in the small minority, overall... people are still seeing their i7's, of any generation, when OC'd to 4.5GHz or higher, still perform well enough to not spend the money on a new processor, mobo, memory, etc...

So, even if Intel releases a new line that is 50% faster per core, for example, very little exists out there that needs that much CPU performance - for consumer and gaming equipment. And the few games that ARE CPU bound are because of poor optimization and design, not because they actually efficiently use the CPU and multi-threading.

But hey, I'll take a higher frame-rate in the shit port of Dark Souls I guess! Or Watch Dogs 2! But those are the only examples I can think of that are CPU-bound, and both are due to idiotic optimization/design. Even though they're great games overall..
 
disemboweler said:
I can almost guarantee you, that due to lack of competition for almost a decade now, that Intel is sitting on new tech that they are waiting to roll out when they finally actually need to, to remain on top. Otherwise, they're really sitting on their asses recently as well, and STILL not getting any competition. Maybe now that changes, but I can't imagine Intel R&D doesn't have SOMETHING up their sleeve to up the ante again once AMD actually starts matching their current offering.

I do hope I'm wrong, this lack of competition hurts us all - and is definitely a driving force behind Intel releasing extremely small, incremental updates for years now, I'd bet. They're just playing the smart game though, if so... why release your newest tech when you're still the performance king, so that it can be (sometimes) copied by the competition? The smart business move would be to hold on to the innovation(s) until there is reason to, and then blow AMD out of the water again for years while they play catch up.
Click to expand...

So you think there is huge improvements around the corner just waiting? You dont think there is competition in the server segment either? Interesting...

IPC increases have been quite low since PPro in 1995. It was the last big jump if you exclude the 2 speed runner designs both companies tried out. Everything else have been from frequency, power increase and integration. But you can only increase the power so much, only clock it so high and only integrate so much before you run out there. Then we had some short term dabbles in core count race. But that doesn't work either for Average Joe due to scaling issues, clock/power and so on.
 
Last edited:
Nobified[H] said:
Where is AMD's inspiration? Where is their innovation to dream? Where is AMD's ability to think outside the box? Go where no man has gone before? This is why I liked AMD, because I felt inspired!!!!!!

Sadly this is where I see America now! :(
Click to expand...

LOL, did you just get out of your Marketing 101 class? :) By the way the tone of my comment here is with humor, not malice...

You used a hell of a lot of buzzwords there, but their "innovation to dream" (whatever that means, haha) has little to do with their problems. Their issues stem from totally incompetent, corrupt management, and MONEY MONEY MONEY. They spend about 1/10th the amount that their competition does, for example NVIDIA, on R&D for each new GPU generation. That is a HUGE difference. There is no way they'll ever catch up, realistically, that way.
 
disemboweler said:
LOL, did you just get out of your Marketing 101 class? :) By the way the tone of my comment here is with humor, not malice...

You used a hell of a lot of buzzwords there, but their "innovation to dream" (whatever that means, haha) has little to do with their problems. Their issues stem from totally incompetent, corrupt management, and MONEY MONEY MONEY. They spend about 1/10th the amount that their competition does, for example NVIDIA, on R&D for each new GPU generation. That is a HUGE difference. There is no way they'll ever catch up, realistically, that way.
Click to expand...

LoL!! Good one! Here is my response in a joking manner. ,,I,, :joyful:
 
disemboweler said:
I'm one of those guys too, but we're in the small minority, overall... people are still seeing their i7's, of any generation, when OC'd to 4.5GHz or higher, still perform well enough to not spend the money on a new processor, mobo, memory, etc...

So, even if Intel releases a new line that is 50% faster per core, for example, very little exists out there that needs that much CPU performance - for consumer and gaming equipment. And the few games that ARE CPU bound are because of poor optimization and design, not because they actually efficiently use the CPU and multi-threading.

But hey, I'll take a higher frame-rate in the shit port of Dark Souls I guess! Or Watch Dogs 2! But those are the only examples I can think of that are CPU-bound, and both are due to idiotic optimization/design. Even though they're great games overall..
Click to expand...

True, and thats my point, no one without money to just burn is going to drop $600+ on a 5-15% increase in performance, drop a 50% increase and my ears will perk up and my wallet will open, same with many, MANY others. If AMD hits near that 50% over Sandy/Ivy, and gets the price right, you're going to see a shitload of sigs change. If it doesn't, in a year or so I'll pick up a used X99 setup and be fine for another 5 years or so :p
 
rgMekanic said:
True, and thats my point, no one without money to just burn is going to drop $600+ on a 5-15% increase in performance, drop a 50% increase and my ears will perk up and my wallet will open, same with many, MANY others. If AMD hits near that 50% over Sandy/Ivy, and gets the price right, you're going to see a shitload of sigs change. If it doesn't, in a year or so I'll pick up a used X99 setup and be fine for another 5 years or so :p
Click to expand...


You make some good points there, but here is the thing, lets say Ryzen top end is 500 bucks, the only thing this does is force Intel to remain competitive with price vs. performance at the top end. Because the people that are looking to upgrade aren't the people that have high end systems, its going to be the average low end computer buyer. People that have already invested in a 99x motherboard, are going to have 6 cores or more for the most part. Pretty much what you are left with are people that are at 4 cores for Intel, a 6700k and less and those chips are already less than 300 bucks. So will AMD pricing really help them in this regard. As you can see it doesn't really fit in when you start looking at who is looking into upgrading.
 
GoD_tattoo said:
I recently upgraded my 3930k to a 5820k and well it was more of a side grade. I would need some crazy increase to make me want or need to upgrade.
Click to expand...
lol i think we can all agree AMD's newest wont be tempting for folks like yourself....Just not gonna happen! Now people like myself? Its possible since when i checked my setup, it took almost 55 seconds with that blender test...If the other cpu tests follow the same pattern AMD might have something.
 
competition, finally!!! I wonder if some version of this is what will be powering the new Xbox Scorpio next year. (obviously not the full chip, but maybe the binned ones with a few bad cores though)
 
disemboweler said:
I'm one of those guys too, but we're in the small minority, overall... people are still seeing their i7's, of any generation, when OC'd to 4.5GHz or higher, still perform well enough to not spend the money on a new processor, mobo, memory, etc...

So, even if Intel releases a new line that is 50% faster per core, for example, very little exists out there that needs that much CPU performance - for consumer and gaming equipment. And the few games that ARE CPU bound are because of poor optimization and design, not because they actually efficiently use the CPU and multi-threading.

But hey, I'll take a higher frame-rate in the shit port of Dark Souls I guess! Or Watch Dogs 2! But those are the only examples I can think of that are CPU-bound, and both are due to idiotic optimization/design. Even though they're great games overall..
Click to expand...

It took more than a 3x performance increase for me to drop $400 on a 1070.

Paying more on a $500 Zen is crazy when I'm not even remotely CPU limited to begin with, and I'm 99.99% sure there won't be any perceived differences in a blind test.
 
An article leaked from http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque/

1a431fe2_8a14207f-a115-4534-b6bd-c7801085ca42.jpeg
 
well gotta wait and see, but if that's the case, then still hasn't reached much past Ivy Bridge in IPC.
 
At this point waiting instead of guessing is best. We are seeing large variances. Competition to the larger CPU and Mainstream. This shouldn't be even competing with the mainstream CPUs, it should be besting it.
 
Take with a grain of salt for now. I dont think the article is fake, but as always. More tests, more reviews etc.
 
Is this actual ryzen final chip or a engineering sample? Some people say the clocks (picture is blurry I can't tell) aren't matching what AMD touted at New Horizon which was 3.4+.

Unless I'm incorrect that article is benchmarking the same chip presented at the event so is it at stock without overclocking?
 
SighTurtle said:
Is this actual ryzen final chip or a engineering sample? Some people say the clocks (picture is blurry I can't tell) aren't matching what AMD touted at New Horizon which was 3.4+.

Unless I'm incorrect that article is benchmarking the same chip presented at the event so is it at stock without overclocking?
Click to expand...
Sample looks different. Looks like someone dodged the NDA but got chip nonetheless.
 
I think we might need a translation of the article (unless one of you actually knows french, then woops) because due to a post on Overclock.net, I was reminded to look at the paragraphs at the bottom, I don't speak French but that second paragraph, might well indicate a ES sample being tested here.
 
Rvenger said:
At this point waiting instead of guessing is best. We are seeing large variances. Competition to the larger CPU and Mainstream. This shouldn't be even competing with the mainstream CPUs, it should be besting it.
Click to expand...

Why is it only running at 3.15 GHz? If the base clock without boost is supposely 3.4? I doubt this is retail. Either way, looks pretty impressive for 3.15 GHz against higher clocked Intel parts, especially on games without much multi threading.
 
SighTurtle said:
I think we might need a translation of the article (unless one of you actually knows french, then woops) because due to a post on Overclock.net, I was reminded to look at the paragraphs at the bottom, I don't speak French but that second paragraph, might well indicate a ES sample being tested here.
Click to expand...

It says prototype turbo mode, they aren't talking about the chip itself. Looks like its turbo isn't always active in the game benchmarks, but it shouldn't be the much difference.......

hmm wait read it wrong, yeah, prototype octcore with lower frequencies than expected, specially with turbo on.

Its difficult to compare/compete against the 6700k with these conditions when 6700k can reach 4 ghz.

Prototype to reach Kaby Lake performance needs to hit 3.8 to 4.2 ghz. (minimum most likely need more)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top