New Zen information, AM3+ info, APU presentation, and video card information

Looking at the release of RX480 sampling in Q3 might also mean 3 days before Q3 is over! I am not even holding my breath for Zen, i am getting a Skylake i3 with eyes closed and without regrets.
 
Marstg said:
Looking at the release of RX480 sampling in Q3 might also mean 3 days before Q3 is over! I am not even holding my breath for Zen, i am getting a Skylake i3 with eyes closed and without regrets.
Click to expand...
You get an i3 you will have regrets. Get at least an i5, and if you plan to keep it for a while and you game then you should get an i7. i3s are dinosaurs and should have been put to pasture.
 
I am getting it mostly for the Quick Sync no need for i5/i7 there.
 
Marstg said:
I am getting it mostly for the Quick Sync no need for i5/i7 there.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Zen has 8 cores and 16 threads?

So how could you ever pretend to be skipping Zen when you didn't want it in the first place ?
 
Last edited:
You do realize that Zen has 8 cores and 16 threads?
Click to expand...

I was going to mention that yesterday. I mean if you are meaning to pay i3 prices the Zen CPU that is scheduled to be released in Q4 is not at all what you want (in terms of price and performance). You are looking for the Zen APUs that will be released sometime in 2017.
 
Last edited:
I got tired of AMD's broken promises. What's with the whole innuendo? If it's ready spell it out, there is nothing more to do now.
 
Marstg said:
I got tired of AMD's broken promises. What's with the whole innuendo? If it's ready spell it out, there is nothing more to do now.
Click to expand...

What they are trying to ask is why would you go from waiting for Zen which is 8 cores and 16 threads to an Intel i3 dual core processor? Shouldn't you have gone to at LEAST a 6 core 12 thread minimum Intel i7 like the 5820K? Or even better the 8 core 16 thread Intel?

What workload do you need completed that you thought could benefit from 8 cores and 16 threads that you found out can easily be accomplished on 2 cores and 4 threads?

Hope I didn't come off as hostile because I'm just really curious. Thanks!
 
Video transcoding. Just found out that the Quick Sync is faster than a hex core 500$ cpu. I do have experience with hex core cpus : 2 x L5639s on a SR-2. Was doing 132k PPD in it's glory days.

AMD advertised 5.5GFlops for the RX 480 , which is close to gtx 980 numbers yet it barely beat gtx970 and not in all the tests. Now they advertise Zen will be competitive with Intel in terms of performance. Like how? The same way phenom ii x6 was doing the same work on 6 cores that Lynnfield was doing on 4 while being also lower clocked? By the time it will be out Kaby Lake will be out as well, so with which generation will be Zen competitive? Haswell? 2 generations back? Do you see the trend here?
 
Last edited:
so with which generation will be Zen competitive? Haswell? 2 generations back?
Click to expand...

I believe it will not be as clear cut as that. IPC will be lower than Intel (should be between Ivy Bridge and Haswell - provided the 40% figure that AMD has stated multiple times is accurate). Clocks probably will not be higher than Intel also (or at least not enough to make up for the lower IPC). However this time (unlike bulldozer) high thread performance (8 or more threads) AM4 Zen will have a clear advantage versus mainstream Intel parts and begin to challenge Intel's Enthusiast platform.
 
Last edited:
Marstg said:
Video transcoding. Just found out that the Quick Sync is faster than a hex core 500$ cpu. I do have experience with hex core cpus : 2 x L5639s on a SR-2. Was doing 132k PPD in it's glory days.

AMD advertised 5.5GFlops for the RX 480 , which is close to gtx 980 numbers yet it barely beat gtx970 and not in all the tests. Now they advertise Zen will be competitive with Intel in terms of performance. Like how? The same way phenom ii x6 was doing the same work on 6 cores that Lynnfield was doing on 4 while being also lower clocked? By the time it will be out Kaby Lake will be out as well, so with which generation will be Zen competitive? Haswell? 2 generations back? Do you see the trend here?
Click to expand...
When the output size is the same or close to the same: you don't get the same quality from Quicksync. In particular, it has trouble with darker scenes/areas of the screen, during motion. However, it is as good as most youtube videos and is blazing fast. I have an i3 6100. Perfect for capture and streaming. Capture quality is very good, as long as you use a higher bitrate, like 35.

*I should say, the quality compares better, in movies. As most movies have less overall motion, than games. Due to close-ups and convesations. and not every single frame in film, is razor sharp, like games are.

But if you are looking for the very best quailty Vs. space saved with H.264: you get better, from using the CPU and tweaking all of the advanced settings.
 
Last edited:
Marstg said:
I got tired of AMD's broken promises. What's with the whole innuendo? If it's ready spell it out, there is nothing more to do now.
Click to expand...

As an AMD fanboy I tend to agree. This whole "just wait til" thing is getting pretty old. I'll still probably wait for Zen but mainly because my 8350 is still getting the job done cause all I do is game at 1080 and for that, my rig is plenty but I'm well passed the point of telling others they should wait. What's the point when it's delay after delay and vague details like this that get released.
 
Marstg said:
Looking at the release of RX480 sampling in Q3 might also mean 3 days before Q3 is over! I am not even holding my breath for Zen, i am getting a Skylake i3 with eyes closed and without regrets.
Click to expand...
Ouch. Have fun with that._.
 
MacLeod said:
As an AMD fanboy I tend to agree. This whole "just wait til" thing is getting pretty old. I'll still probably wait for Zen but mainly because my 8350 is still getting the job done cause all I do is game at 1080 and for that, my rig is plenty but I'm well passed the point of telling others they should wait. What's the point when it's delay after delay and vague details like this that get released.
Click to expand...

And I used to be AMD fanboy all the way till Zambezi was released. Actually when it was released my opinion expressed on another forum is that AMD should have ditched Zambezi and refocus on Phenom II, shrink it and add 2 more cores. It would have been much easier and profitable! Since the Zambezi release i had only Intel systems passing from 2 hexacores 1366 Xeons to G3258 and even got to mod a 771 Xeon to run on a P35. The direction AMD went was like : let's build something new and let's hope it will gain traction! AMD needs to leave that direction and embrace a new mantra if they want to survive : let's build something that works phenomenally well on today's software and maybe we can catch up to Intel's previous generation in terms of performance and we'll catch them pants down on the price side!
 
Marstg said:
And I used to be AMD fanboy all the way till Zambezi was released. Actually when it was released my opinion expressed on another forum is that AMD should have ditched Zambezi and refocus on Phenom II, shrink it and add 2 more cores. It would have been much easier and profitable! Since the Zambezi release i had only Intel systems passing from 2 hexacores 1366 Xeons to G3258 and even got to mod a 771 Xeon to run on a P35. The direction AMD went was like : let's build something new and let's hope it will gain traction! AMD needs to leave that direction and embrace a new mantra if they want to survive : let's build something that works phenomenally well on today's software and maybe we can catch up to Intel's previous generation in terms of performance and we'll catch them pants down on the price side!
Click to expand...

Yeah I can imagine you were jumping for joy when you bought Intel cpu last several years where you paid a premium price for a mere 3 to 5 percent increase that is if you had source compiled with the right options to make it go faster.

What is it with the disingenuous attitude towards AMD of some of you folks here. Why do you think there is no competition from other companies making x86 cpu if it was so easy to compete with Intel ..

Give it a break ....
 
I am sorry, it is not disingenuous or disrespectful it is realistic. AMD used to be a strong competitor to Intel. I had AMD cpus since the days of Duron 600! But how far in IPC was Phenom II compared to C2D clock for clock? 20-25%? And the gap only widened since then. Have you seen that chart with Doom ran on Vulkan? The 9370 is marginally faster than a Core i3 Sandy Bridge! Time to leave the fanboy attitude aside and have a realistic look at the state of things. I assume after your reaction that you are the owner of an AMD cpu. I hope AMD will raise again from it's own ashes but I am not holding my breath for it.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Yeah I can imagine you were jumping for joy when you bought Intel cpu last several years where you paid a premium price for a mere 3 to 5 percent increase that is if you had source compiled with the right options to make it go faster.

What is it with the disingenuous attitude towards AMD of some of you folks here. Why do you think there is no competition from other companies making x86 cpu if it was so easy to compete with Intel ..

Give it a break ....
Click to expand...

Well we've been consistently let down by AMD since, oh about 2009 now. Then after Bulldozer and Piledriver we got a few years of AMD literally stating they were out of the high end market and we were forced to sit through several "launches" of low powered laptop and tablet CPU's. Then we start hearing about Zen and how it's going to be competing in the high end market again, then delay after vague details after delay after more vague details. I understand you can't just whip up an Intel killer in your garage with spare parts and the performance desktop segment is tiny but us Team Red guys have been patient for damn near a decade now and it's getting a little old.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
What is it with the disingenuous attitude towards AMD of some of you folks here. Why do you think there is no competition from other companies making x86 cpu if it was so easy to compete with Intel ..

Give it a break ....
Click to expand...

Its called realism. It takes nothing else but to look at the R&D budget. You would laugh of people claiming that the next VIA CPU will be an AMD/Intel competitor if not killer, wouldn't you? And that's why its hard to take people serious that got unrealistic expectations. Specially when the underdog company promised the sky for close to 10 years, yet it delivered a hole in the ground.
 
MacLeod said:
Well we've been consistently let down by AMD since, oh about 2009 now. Then after Bulldozer and Piledriver we got a few years of AMD literally stating they were out of the high end market and we were forced to sit through several "launches" of low powered laptop and tablet CPU's. Then we start hearing about Zen and how it's going to be competing in the high end market again, then delay after vague details after delay after more vague details. I understand you can't just whip up an Intel killer in your garage with spare parts and the performance desktop segment is tiny but us Team Red guys have been patient for damn near a decade now and it's getting a little old.
Click to expand...

What kind of bullshit is this AMD tries the best they can and with the money they have. They don't have much money so how can you be let down by AMD at what point in time did you not understand that when they came with Bulldozer the whole range would not compete with Intel on performance ?
Marstg said:
I am sorry, it is not disingenuous or disrespectful it is realistic. AMD used to be a strong competitor to Intel. I had AMD cpus since the days of Duron 600! But how far in IPC was Phenom II compared to C2D clock for clock? 20-25%? And the gap only widened since then. Have you seen that chart with Doom ran on Vulkan? The 9370 is marginally faster than a Core i3 Sandy Bridge! Time to leave the fanboy attitude aside and have a realistic look at the state of things. I assume after your reaction that you are the owner of an AMD cpu. I hope AMD will raise again from it's own ashes but I am not holding my breath for it.
Click to expand...

Intel started to play dirty and AMD never had the money Intel had so that part is ancient history (nor did AMD have good management). That Doom on Vulkan is not that fast with a 8 core AMD cpu says more about coding then the difference in real performance ....

If anyone has a fanboy attitude it is this guy .
 
Pieter3dnow said:
What kind of bullshit is this AMD tries the best they can and with the money they have. They don't have much money so how can you be let down by AMD at what point in time did you not understand that when they came with Bulldozer the whole range would not compete with Intel on performance ?
Click to expand...

Aww that's sweet. AMD tries their best. I can be let down by AMD by Bulldozer because it was supposed to put them back on the map, not be SLOWER than their predecessor. Piledriver was an improvement but them after that they outright admitted to leaving the performance segment. I was let down by every single launch of a new tablet CPU from them. AMD has never had to be faster than Intel, just competitive. Phenom II was exactly that. A little slower but fast enough and a lot cheaper. AMD has plenty of money for that. Unfortunately Roy Read saw tablets and cell phone CPU's and cheap low powered APU's as the future.
 
MacLeod said:
Aww that's sweet. AMD tries their best. I can be let down by AMD by Bulldozer because it was supposed to put them back on the map, not be SLOWER than their predecessor. Piledriver was an improvement but them after that they outright admitted to leaving the performance segment. I was let down by every single launch of a new tablet CPU from them. AMD has never had to be faster than Intel, just competitive. Phenom II was exactly that. A little slower but fast enough and a lot cheaper. AMD has plenty of money for that. Unfortunately Roy Read saw tablets and cell phone CPU's and cheap low powered APU's as the future.
Click to expand...

Jaguar cores served their purpose not only in the consoles but they used some of the ideas for Zen as well.
From what I have heard that Phenom II would not scale any more there was no life left in the design for several reasons.
AMD would never be able to compete with ARM even Intel can not compete even when they are dumping all of their chips at half the cost (buy 1 get one free, Intel did even better deals from rumours floating around).
 
Isn't 3dnow the name of the multimedia instructions AMD created to equal MMX in the K6 cpu? 3DNow. And you still want us to believe you are not AMD fanboy? Are you sure?
 
Marstg said:
Isn't 3dnow the name of the multimedia instructions AMD created to equal MMX in the K6 cpu? 3DNow. And you still want us to believe you are not AMD fanboy? Are you sure?
Click to expand...
He is but he isn't flinging falsities for the sake of bolstering the image of AMD. You however do not belong in this sub forum and I would cordially ask you leave for the benefit of the others that like myself would like good info on AMD products and not fishing thru biased laden crap.

Phenom was end of line and had nothing left to give, instruction sets have no bearing on that at all. Bulldozer/Piledriver actually makes sense when one knows all the facts, or at least most of them. Makes even more sense when looking at GCN and current DX12/Vulkan performance. I gather you know nothing of this and hence why I ask you to refrain from posting negative generally unfounded and on the whole inane comments here. Your interest obviously lies with Intel and they have their own subforum.
 
Marstg said:
Looking at the release of RX480 sampling in Q3 might also mean 3 days before Q3 is over! I am not even holding my breath for Zen, i am getting a Skylake i3 with eyes closed and without regrets.
Click to expand...

Nice, hope that 'beast' will serve you well. Hope you don't have any multi-threaded anything in the next 1-3 yrs (depending on your upgrade cycle), it may take that long to complete them. No need to worry though as you will have no regrets, like you said. Guess the same can be said for single threaded AMD performance, no need to be overly biased now is there. Since I have an 8150 and can do the things I need for that machine to do (GTAV at 60+ fps at 1080p among other games with same or better fps) I don't need to worry either since in game performance is largely determined by the GPU in most situations. Will I gain a few fps (avg +5-15 fps) if I upgrade to Skylake? Yes. Is that marginal fps improvement worth the $250CPU, new motherboard (I spend about $150 on this part), new ram that would need to be invested to achieve that? In my eyes, no. Would that money be better spent on upgrading my GTX970 to a GTX1070? In my view that would be a yes since I stand to gain more than 5-15fps by upgrading the GPU to the current 1070 product line. On average I gain about 40-50% improvement in performance each GPU generation I upgrade to that usually translates into more than a few fps in the games I play. With a 1070 and an aging FX8150 I feel the system will perform well enough until AMD actually releases their next CPU product stack, then a decision can be made to replace the backbone with either Intel or AMD.
 
Dermac said:
Nice, hope that 'beast' will serve you well. Hope you don't have any multi-threaded anything in the next 1-3 yrs (depending on your upgrade cycle), it may take that long to complete them. No need to worry though as you will have no regrets, like you said. Guess the same can be said for single threaded AMD performance, no need to be overly biased now is there. Since I have an 8150 and can do the things I need for that machine to do (GTAV at 60+ fps at 1080p among other games with same or better fps) I don't need to worry either since in game performance is largely determined by the GPU in most situations. Will I gain a few fps (avg +5-15 fps) if I upgrade to Skylake? Yes. Is that marginal fps improvement worth the $250CPU, new motherboard (I spend about $150 on this part), new ram that would need to be invested to achieve that? In my eyes, no. Would that money be better spent on upgrading my GTX970 to a GTX1070? In my view that would be a yes since I stand to gain more than 5-15fps by upgrading the GPU to the current 1070 product line. On average I gain about 40-50% improvement in performance each GPU generation I upgrade to that usually translates into more than a few fps in the games I play. With a 1070 and an aging FX8150 I feel the system will perform well enough until AMD actually releases their next CPU product stack, then a decision can be made to replace the backbone with either Intel or AMD.
Click to expand...
See you hit the real points that most like to pretend don't exist: REAL WORLD. Unfortunately for AMD they were a bit too far ahead in the game for their design. When the 8150 released Windows didn't allocate the threads well, a major hit to performance. By the time I got my 8350, one month after release, Windows ran better. But unfortunately the gaming API that AMD was building GCN and the CPU module design for didn't release until now: DX12/Vulkan. Of course because it took so long getting that multicore API, AMD is still behind Intel in performance but that differential is far less with the new APIs.

But back to your statement, criteria is king. At 60hz AMDs 8 cores and 6 cores can perform admirably. So much so that any other CPU will show little to no improvement over them. And you gave that criteria, thank you.
 
Dermac said:
*snip* With a 1070 and an aging FX8150 I feel the system will perform well enough until AMD actually releases their next CPU product stack, then a decision can be made to replace the backbone with either Intel or AMD. *snip*
Click to expand...

Felt this point was worth repeating as it seems to be pretty difficult to be CPU limited, even in games, once you cross a certain line. I am constantly fighting an itch to upgrade since I keep seeing discussions on how much faster some of the newer processors are, but when it comes right down to it the question is: will I notice the difference? Most of the time I think the answer is "no" because I don't play benchmarks. In fact, I haven't felt a burning desire to upgrade since I stopped benchmarking my system and just played games on it instead, so that upgrade itch just gets ignored.

That said, it does make me wonder how long I'll end up keeping my current hardware. The nerd in me says I need to upgrade ASAP, but the responsible adult with other obligations in me says there's no need and may not be unless something actually gives up the ghost. I do see a benefit to having more threads available as I run a lot of VMs these days along with browsers and office apps on multiple monitors, but even with all that I am not sure I'd notice any change either with more cores or more speed.
 
Devilpup said:
Felt this point was worth repeating as it seems to be pretty difficult to be CPU limited, even in games, once you cross a certain line. I am constantly fighting an itch to upgrade since I keep seeing discussions on how much faster some of the newer processors are, but when it comes right down to it the question is: will I notice the difference? Most of the time I think the answer is "no" because I don't play benchmarks. In fact, I haven't felt a burning desire to upgrade since I stopped benchmarking my system and just played games on it instead, so that upgrade itch just gets ignored.

That said, it does make me wonder how long I'll end up keeping my current hardware. The nerd in me says I need to upgrade ASAP, but the responsible adult with other obligations in me says there's no need and may not be unless something actually gives up the ghost. I do see a benefit to having more threads available as I run a lot of VMs these days along with browsers and office apps on multiple monitors, but even with all that I am not sure I'd notice any change either with more cores or more speed.
Click to expand...

Although there is a difference in the way things feel to a small extent, the biggest difference I saw was less money in my bank account. :( That is why I sold off my 6700k, motherboard and ram and went back to a FX8300, Asus 970 Pro Aura and 16 GB of of Kingston HyperX DDr3 1866 Ram. Not only do I prefer AMD anyways but, I think I gamed on the setup about 4 hours in 8 months which made it a waste of money for me. I then had some additional money to put back into savings.
 
Blame Reddit; not me.

5cedda0c9e.PNG
 
JustReason said:
He is but he isn't flinging falsities for the sake of bolstering the image of AMD. You however do not belong in this sub forum and I would cordially ask you leave for the benefit of the others that like myself would like good info on AMD products and not fishing thru biased laden crap.
Click to expand...

Thing is if it wasn't for other folks popping in, the 3 to 4 AMD CPU fanboys left here would have very little to discuss. 4 people all holding the same belief makes for a very dull conversation.

AMD CPU Fan 1 "Oh Zen will be great!"

AMD CPU Fan 2 "Yes it will!"

AMD CPU Fan 3 " Oh ditto!"

AMD CPU Fan 4 "I agree!"

Tumbleweed.................

6 months later

AMD CPU Fan 1 "Well I'm sure Zen will still be great!"

AMD CPU Fan 2 "Yes it will!"

AMD CPU Fan 3 " Oh ditto!"

AMD CPU Fan 4 "I agree!"

Tumbleweed..................

Rinse and repeat.

It's not looking good guys. I pop in to look from time to time and the AMD CPU section seems to have been stuck in a repeating time loop for the past three years. Nothing is moving forward. Just going round in circles with a few still desperately clinging on as though AMD will do them a great favour some time.
 
daglesj said:
Thing is if it wasn't for other folks popping in, the 3 to 4 AMD CPU fanboys left here would have very little to discuss. 4 people all holding the same belief makes for a very dull conversation.

AMD CPU Fan 1 "Oh Zen will be great!"

AMD CPU Fan 2 "Yes it will!"

AMD CPU Fan 3 " Oh ditto!"

AMD CPU Fan 4 "I agree!"

Tumbleweed.................

6 months later

AMD CPU Fan 1 "Well I'm sure Zen will still be great!"

AMD CPU Fan 2 "Yes it will!"

AMD CPU Fan 3 " Oh ditto!"

AMD CPU Fan 4 "I agree!"

Tumbleweed..................

Rinse and repeat.

It's not looking good guys. I pop in to look from time to time and the AMD CPU section seems to have been stuck in a repeating time loop for the past three years. Nothing is moving forward. Just going round in circles with a few still desperately clinging on as though AMD will do them a great favour some time.
Click to expand...

That's nice. And well you are feeling smug and superior in your chair, I will be going out and doing something more enjoyable, like running a fast 5k race. :) You see, I have not seen anything to indicate that my system is any less capable than it was before I sold off my i7 6700k and 980 Ti. In fact, I have been enjoying it much more since then because I also have more money in the bank than I did before. The games I play are still playing very well also.

Seriously, you Intel fans really need to get over yourself, there really is life outside of Intel headquarters.
 
daglesj said:
Thing is if it wasn't for other folks popping in, the 3 to 4 AMD CPU fanboys left here would have very little to discuss. 4 people all holding the same belief makes for a very dull conversation.

AMD CPU Fan 1 "Oh Zen will be great!"

AMD CPU Fan 2 "Yes it will!"

AMD CPU Fan 3 " Oh ditto!"

AMD CPU Fan 4 "I agree!"

Tumbleweed.................

6 months later

AMD CPU Fan 1 "Well I'm sure Zen will still be great!"

AMD CPU Fan 2 "Yes it will!"

AMD CPU Fan 3 " Oh ditto!"

AMD CPU Fan 4 "I agree!"

Tumbleweed..................

Rinse and repeat.

It's not looking good guys. I pop in to look from time to time and the AMD CPU section seems to have been stuck in a repeating time loop for the past three years. Nothing is moving forward. Just going round in circles with a few still desperately clinging on as though AMD will do them a great favour some time.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with information good or bad. I have a problem with someone arguing just for the sake of arguing, especially when their interest is not even remotely on the thread subject. Look at it like this (and this is my biggest beef with most of these posters):

It always ends up with someone spouting in about how the FXs cant compete with i3, generally alluding to the performance of AMD CPU barely being good enough for a handheld calculator. Now enter in those of us that have intimate knowledge of both Intel and AMD CPUs. We generally paint the accurate picture of how given certain criteria (criteria here being the general situation of 90% of the user base for desktop PCs) the difference for most would be negligible. I have even stated a number of blind tests where it was nearly even between those trying to decide which was which, lending credence to the fact that it likely doesn't matter in most cases. There was a thread last week where a guy was inquiring between an Intel and AMD CPU and Manofgod and myself actually directed the user to Intel as the logical first choice although stating AMD was a viable choice if that is what he wanted to do. Then the standard Negative Nancy poster shows up to crap on AMD in the AMD subforum and again with no context.

Now as far as Zen, again, most of us AMD posters are trying to be reasonable with expectations. Given what we know as information:

1: 40% IPC increase (said to be over excavator so being the majority of PCs with AMD are Piledriver, even if it fell short of the original but managed 40% over the FX line then that is still good)

2: 8c/16t desktop CPU (non-APU) first

3: Definitely early 2017 with some rumors putting end 2016

The first 2 seem reasonable and hardly seem inflated. The 3rd is the recently contested part although hardly a breaking point. I mean literally The last good desktop PC CPU was the 8350 (including its OCed variants 9370 + 9590) and it is still able to compete in the majority of the market, the release date is not likely a huge impact for most users. Again here rational reason is king.

1: Intel is a fair bit stronger

2: Intel CPUs have access to the latest code/instruction sets (AVX2)

3: Intel is quite a bit more efficient energy-wise (the extent in real world electricity cost is the point of contention and very dependent on local costs)

Now then the discussion becomes what does it mean to a guy in the market now.

1: For 60hz Monitor gameplay Most CPU/APUs will achieve 60Fps avg

2: For 120Hz gaming Intel becomes the clearer choice

3: AMD FX purchases are not as simple as plug and play ( to fully get the performance out of these better hardware is required) whereas Intel is closer to a plug and play (with a lot of thier line being the only choice you get)

Can AMD still be a viable option if one so chooses? YES, but one must be aware that criteria is king and rationality is your best friend.

Now how does this relate to ZEN? Well if AMD FX can get it done then ZEN surely can. Not sure if it will be as much fun as the FXs have been. But given DX12/Vulkan have brought all CPUs to viable and more-so higher core count CPUs, then ZEN with the 8c/16t variant could be the best situation for most with FXs and low core count Intels, assuming price is like it has been with AMD and it is reachable for the majority of users.

And lastly if some, and there are a few, AMD posters seem overly zealous at least it is in the AMD subforum where it makes sense to be a bit fanboish. I get quelling it a bit but to downright come in and Blast AMD users' choice of CPU with blatantly false, out-of-context remarks is unnecessary and not as noble as you make it sound. Sorry but claiming an i3 is better than 4core anything is asinine. Promoting an i3 is asinine in an enthusiast forum except in niche situations. The only reason some here are spouting that biased crap is to start the flame war and make the situation look dire when in fact it is never as simple as they make it sound. It is not necessary. And to be honest it is very akin to the point you are making.

Touting ZEN as the second coming is way off base

Touting an i3 as the better choice over an 8350 is way off base

Both are equal in the fact that they aren't based in reality and only in/using just fragments of the information as to make their conclusion sound viable.

You are correct in your assessment of some individuals but not the whole. But you also have to admit it is a bit of both sides and the extremes being absent would make these discussions a bit more informative.
 
I'm not really going on the performance angle. I think AMD are just too far behind personally. I'd love them to come back but that's like hoping Mel Gibson will be back on top one day.

What just tickles me is some in the sub forum feel that godlike devotion is the key to the point of just ignoring basic fundamentals. It's looks like going on a supercar forum and swearing blind the Toyota Corolla is the ultimate car ever. Hey, its not a bad car but don't get carried away now.

AMD is not your god and keeping the faith won't guarantee you a place in AMD heaven. Just calm it down a tad and maybe so many of the Intel boys won't bother baiting you so much.

I like the FX chips and have bought several for customers. I have made many FX 6300 boxes for web design/developer folks. Cheap but plenty of power if they suddenly need it. Going FX means the budget will go towards more ram/SDD and maybe a 10bit colour capable card (Quadro from Ebay)
 
Last edited:
ManofGod said:
That's nice. And well you are feeling smug and superior in your chair, I will be going out and doing something more enjoyable, like running a fast 5k race. :) You see, I have not seen anything to indicate that my system is any less capable than it was before I sold off my i7 6700k and 980 Ti. In fact, I have been enjoying it much more since then because I also have more money in the bank than I did before. The games I play are still playing very well also.

Seriously, you Intel fans really need to get over yourself, there really is life outside of Intel headquarters.
Click to expand...

See this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
 
daglesj said:
See this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

I have no godlike devotion except to the One True and Holy God and Jesus Christ! :) On the other hand, how do you expect me to respond, by lying and just simply lying down and getting stomped on? I know what my straight up personal experience is, if you do not like that, tough s**t. My system is fully capable of playing everything I do very smoothly well saving money at the same time. If you want to spend your money on something else, good for you but, do not expect me to somehow lie just because you do not agree with me.

On the other hand, calm down your Intel fanboy attitude please, it can be really grating on the nerves. Oh, and way to take my comment out of context. :rolleyes:
 
daglesj said:
It's not looking good guys. I pop in to look from time to time and the AMD CPU section seems to have been stuck in a repeating time loop for the past three years. Nothing is moving forward. Just going round in circles with a few still desperately clinging on as though AMD will do them a great favour some time.
Click to expand...

Talking about circle jerk you are doing one as well. It is already known that Zen won't beat current Intel offering in IPC.

I'm not to sure on which part you are stuck on. After it was announced that Piledriver would be the latest revision of Bulldozer to hit AM3+ there was nothing else to look forward to, we all knew that FM2(+) would not work out for most of us since it was not going to go places IPC wise. When you saw the road,map it would have 15% increase per generation and from Bulldozer that would not have been enough to bridge the gap.

If you can not believe in AMD doing something that moves them forward then why would there be a point in keeping this forum ...
 
JustReason said:
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with information good or bad. I have a problem with someone arguing just for the sake of arguing, especially when their interest is not even remotely on the thread subject. Look at it like this (and this is my biggest beef with most of these posters):

It always ends up with someone spouting in about how the FXs cant compete with i3, generally alluding to the performance of AMD CPU barely being good enough for a handheld calculator. Now enter in those of us that have intimate knowledge of both Intel and AMD CPUs. We generally paint the accurate picture of how given certain criteria (criteria here being the general situation of 90% of the user base for desktop PCs) the difference for most would be negligible. I have even stated a number of blind tests where it was nearly even between those trying to decide which was which, lending credence to the fact that it likely doesn't matter in most cases. There was a thread last week where a guy was inquiring between an Intel and AMD CPU and Manofgod and myself actually directed the user to Intel as the logical first choice although stating AMD was a viable choice if that is what he wanted to do. Then the standard Negative Nancy poster shows up to crap on AMD in the AMD subforum and again with no context.

Now as far as Zen, again, most of us AMD posters are trying to be reasonable with expectations. Given what we know as information:

1: 40% IPC increase (said to be over excavator so being the majority of PCs with AMD are Piledriver, even if it fell short of the original but managed 40% over the FX line then that is still good)

2: 8c/16t desktop CPU (non-APU) first

3: Definitely early 2017 with some rumors putting end 2016

The first 2 seem reasonable and hardly seem inflated. The 3rd is the recently contested part although hardly a breaking point. I mean literally The last good desktop PC CPU was the 8350 (including its OCed variants 9370 + 9590) and it is still able to compete in the majority of the market, the release date is not likely a huge impact for most users. Again here rational reason is king.

1: Intel is a fair bit stronger

2: Intel CPUs have access to the latest code/instruction sets (AVX2)

3: Intel is quite a bit more efficient energy-wise (the extent in real world electricity cost is the point of contention and very dependent on local costs)

Now then the discussion becomes what does it mean to a guy in the market now.

1: For 60hz Monitor gameplay Most CPU/APUs will achieve 60Fps avg

2: For 120Hz gaming Intel becomes the clearer choice

3: AMD FX purchases are not as simple as plug and play ( to fully get the performance out of these better hardware is required) whereas Intel is closer to a plug and play (with a lot of thier line being the only choice you get)

Can AMD still be a viable option if one so chooses? YES, but one must be aware that criteria is king and rationality is your best friend.

Now how does this relate to ZEN? Well if AMD FX can get it done then ZEN surely can. Not sure if it will be as much fun as the FXs have been. But given DX12/Vulkan have brought all CPUs to viable and more-so higher core count CPUs, then ZEN with the 8c/16t variant could be the best situation for most with FXs and low core count Intels, assuming price is like it has been with AMD and it is reachable for the majority of users.

And lastly if some, and there are a few, AMD posters seem overly zealous at least it is in the AMD subforum where it makes sense to be a bit fanboish. I get quelling it a bit but to downright come in and Blast AMD users' choice of CPU with blatantly false, out-of-context remarks is unnecessary and not as noble as you make it sound. Sorry but claiming an i3 is better than 4core anything is asinine. Promoting an i3 is asinine in an enthusiast forum except in niche situations. The only reason some here are spouting that biased crap is to start the flame war and make the situation look dire when in fact it is never as simple as they make it sound. It is not necessary. And to be honest it is very akin to the point you are making.

Touting ZEN as the second coming is way off base

Touting an i3 as the better choice over an 8350 is way off base

Both are equal in the fact that they aren't based in reality and only in/using just fragments of the information as to make their conclusion sound viable.

You are correct in your assessment of some individuals but not the whole. But you also have to admit it is a bit of both sides and the extremes being absent would make these discussions a bit more informative.
Click to expand...

This was an excellent post.
 
There was never any doubt. It was known long ago that both Intel and AMD was into 2017 for new desktop CPUs.
 
It's no surprise but is it known what's taking so long? I read something about chipset not being ready but I think it was here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top