Who's planning to buy Zen?

[Magic Hate Ball]

Actually a 6600K beats a 5960


Actually a 6600K can beat a 5960

In Overwatch? Do you have benchmarks to share? What clockspeeds are we talking?

If all cores are in use, the 5960X only goes up to 3.3ghz boost, not 3.5ghz, making it 600mhz slower than an all core boosted 6600K at stock if I'm reading things correctly (3.9ghz all core boost limited).

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

So you decide to completely dismiss the FX results. 2M4T, 3M6T, 4M8T all performed the same at same clocks. The 5960X vs a 3Ghz SKL raises its own questions. There are no benefit with real cores vs HT.
The Kaveri chip in the test performed half of the 2M4T FX. Lack of L3 cache? The HT parts also got 2MB more cache than the non HT parts if that got any effect.

There is a reason why I asked you for numbers after patches etc.

Yes I dismissed a totally different and inferior architecture in my comparison. Ryzen is more closely related to the Intel i5/7 than it is the FX chips based on everything we've read. I'm just saying more than 4 straight cores is useful ALREADY, and that's even if you're not multitasking in the background / second monitor.

 

[tangoseal]

I get so tired of people comparing productivity processors to gaming processors.

a Quad core running at 4.0ghz is going to perform better by far, pound for pount, than a 16 core at 3.4ghz. Stop the lame and idiotic comparison.

Don't buy the damn octacore if you don't want a powerhouse multithreaded productivity platform. Go for the fastes core clocked processor you can get for gaming. But please above all else stop with the fucking I7 quad is much faster in gaming thus the ZEN is a piece of shit argument.

I as well as probably 90% of others are sick and tired of this crap.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

I get so tired of people comparing productivity processors to gaming processors.

a Quad core running at 4.0ghz is going to perform better by far, pound for pount, than a 16 core at 3.4ghz. Stop the lame and idiotic comparison.

Don't buy the damn octacore if you don't want a powerhouse multithreaded productivity platform. Go for the fastes core clocked processor you can get for gaming. But please above all else stop with the fucking I7 quad is much faster in gaming thus the ZEN is a piece of shit argument.

I as well as probably 90% of others are sick and tired of this crap.

Maybe deep down I enjoy arguing

Anyway, I'll be glad when Kyle gets his hands on a Ryzen chip and runs it through its paces, overclocks and all.

 

[bal3wolf]

i havet had a amd sence i had a AMD's Athlon XP 3200+ never had good luck with them but the zen does look decent im due for a system upgrade might least look into them.

 

[nomas]

My decision will be predicated on Ryzen having unbuffered ECC ram support...

 

[tangoseal]

My decision will be predicated on Ryzen having unbuffered ECC ram support...

I liked your response becasue I too want ECC but it is NOT my deciding factor as I have stated earlier. But here is to supporting your wishes as I wish for it too ultimately.

I am getting all excited and stuff because here is me envisioning 6900K performance @ half or less than half of the price of that overpriced Intel part.

If amd does it right they will make an absolute KILLING by pricing Zen correctly. I also think the name RyZen is retarded, but I get the point behind it.

 

[drescherjm]

I am getting all excited and stuff because here is me envisioning 6900K performance @ half or less than half of the price of that overpriced Intel part.
If amd does it right they will make an absolute KILLING by pricing Zen correctly.

I expect that 1/2 the price of the 6900K will be over most average users budgets. So more importantly to AMD is how they price the 4C / 8T models and the future APUs.

 

[tangoseal]

Maybe deep down I enjoy arguing

Anyway, I'll be glad when Kyle gets his hands on a Ryzen chip and runs it through its paces, overclocks and all.

Oh I wasnt using dirty language at you. And I wasn't targeting my response soley at you. But it has been a common thread with comparing zen to intel lately. Its like comparing an apple to an onion, sure they are both food, but they were grown to offer different taste for different people in different dishes.

I expect that 1/2 the price of the 6900K will be over most average users budgets. So more importantly to AMD is how they price the 4C / 8T models and the future APUs.

Yes I keep forgetting about the 4c model. It should naturally offer even higher boost clocks as well yielding a better gaming platform than the 8 core version. But that is all arbitrary and trivial. If were talking about a leap of 10-15 fps when the 8 core is already delivering 120fps there is absolutely ZERO detectable difference to an end user. And surprisingly so it may not cause a hug gap in minimum frame rates (the thing that matters most) as one would think. We are getting closer by the day to the release. Lets not count the chickens before they hatch and then again we do know AMD's past so we kind of have to count.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Would be nice if AMD use the process headroom and maybe push a 3.8 or 4ghz base clock

 

[tangoseal]

Would be nice if AMD use the process headroom and maybe push a 3.8 or 4ghz base clock

hrmm ... they may not because then they can't market higher overclock ranges.... it would be nice to get an 8 core with a 3.8 or 4ghz base though that thing would fly.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

hrmm ... they may not because then they can't market higher overclock ranges.... it would be nice to get an 8 core with a 3.8 or 4ghz base though that thing would fly.

My feeling is that it will beat a 5960X on IPC, and use additional clockspeed(3.6-4) to match the 6900(3.3/3.7). Per Cinebench a [email protected] scores 151/1547 assuming the presumption on the data leaked is correct a Ryzen at 4ghz would score 159/1533,. That is maybe the sales pitch but a very interesting one.

 

[Shintai]

Note its just from Chiphell forums:
https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1697525-1-1.html

Fastest 8C/16T might not be cheap - he expects 3999-4999 RMB ($580-720)

 

[JustReason]

3.6 base / 4.0 boost would suffice. The general review shows base clock results 90% of the time. Even as much as I would like a lower price, if it is anywhere close to Intels at a $1000 tag then it should be $600-700 to start. They can reduce the price a number of months later. $300 seems too low, albeit would garner marketshare at a much higher rate.

 

[Shintai]

They can reduce the price a number of months later.

That would mean it was overpriced to begin with compared to performance metrics.

 

[JustReason]

That would mean it was overpriced to begin with compared to performance metrics.

No it wouldn't. It would be a way to get marketshare and have decent margins to start. Not an unusual business practice worldwide.

 

[Shintai]

No it wouldn't. It would be a way to get marketshare and have decent margins to start. Not an unusual business practice worldwide.

No it would just start a price war with no benefit. And AMD would just lose out on revenue gains.

 

[noko]

Note its just from Chiphell forums:
https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1697525-1-1.html

Fastest 8C/16T might not be cheap - he expects 3999-4999 RMB ($580-720)

If the cpu performs, that is OK (at least for me) problem is what you stick it in - the platform seems some what weak for that price range. I will most likely wait to see what Skylake E brings to the table before deciding. Hopefully AMD kicks ass and Intel rushes out Skylake E as well to allow use to make the best decision earlier.

 

[tangoseal]

If the cpu performs, that is OK (at least for me) problem is what you stick it in - the platform seems some what weak for that price range. I will most likely wait to see what Skylake E brings to the table before deciding. Hopefully AMD kicks ass and Intel rushes out Skylake E as well to allow use to make the best decision earlier.

IM not buying anything until AMD releases numbers. If it aint from AMD's mouth it has ZERO weight.

 

[ManofGod]

Here it is, my Birthday and AMD clearly forgot to let me know when they are going to release it. I want to know but, we can't always get what you want.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

No it would just start a price war with no benefit. And AMD would just lose out on revenue gains.

Actually AMD would put a big fat dent into Intel earnings and drive their stock price down. All the profits Intel been counting on would vanish. AMD would gain marketshare regardless of how they are playing this but if they are conservative and rely on higher margins they would certainly not hurt Intel and hurt themselves in the process 2017 would be the best year in decades for AMD.

They have nothing to lose either way. But the gains they can make by going after Intel market share with a vengeance would hurt Intel more then AMD.

 

[Shintai]

Actually AMD would put a big fat dent into Intel earnings and drive their stock price down. All the profits Intel been counting on would vanish. AMD would gain marketshare regardless of how they are playing this but if they are conservative and rely on higher margins they would certainly not hurt Intel and hurt themselves in the process 2017 would be the best year in decades for AMD.

They have nothing to lose either way. But the gains they can make by going after Intel market share with a vengeance would hurt Intel more then AMD.

Since AMD isn't an IDM and their cost structure is way higher not to mention the lack of volume. I am sure you can see who would lose the most. It would be outright suicide. And when was the last time the AMD CPU division made a profit? AMD needs to make money and make good money. There isn't much else to sell off. Anyone thinking AMD would be best of in a price war is fooling themselves big time.

 

[noko]

AMD big $ should be with the server market and eventually HPC as well. Consumer market is flat plus if your cpu competes with what is already out there, folks machines are performing good enough for them then you end up selling to basically their own crowd or AMD current users. For example like me, although I use Intel as well so kinda a mute point. Still an 8/16 thread core chips or more is what I want, would like to see some of the two socket AM4 boards out there and what processors they will support, Operons? At least they would have sufficient PCIe lanes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581...-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017

 

[tangoseal]

AMD big $ should be with the server market and eventually HPC as well. Consumer market is flat plus if your cpu competes with what is already out there, folks machines are performing good enough for them then you end up selling to basically their own crowd or AMD current users. For example like me, although I use Intel as well so kinda a mute point. Still an 8/16 thread core chips or more is what I want, would like to see some of the two socket AM4 boards out there and what processors they will support, Operons? At least they would have sufficient PCIe lanes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581...-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017

The markets definitely not flat.. people are buying, but enthusiast might be more of what you speak of for gaming being flat based on stale processor advancements.

Gaming PC market just hit 30 billion for first time. They are selling like mad now over consoles.

http://wccftech.com/pc-gaming-hardware-market-30-billion/

 

[Shintai]

AMD big $ should be with the server market and eventually HPC as well. Consumer market is flat plus if your cpu competes with what is already out there, folks machines are performing good enough for them then you end up selling to basically their own crowd or AMD current users. For example like me, although I use Intel as well so kinda a mute point. Still an 8/16 thread core chips or more is what I want, would like to see some of the two socket AM4 boards out there and what processors they will support, Operons? At least they would have sufficient PCIe lanes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581...-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017

There isn't any dual socket AM4 boards. Its just 1 socket. Else you are moving to SP3 sockets.

 

[Shintai]

The markets definitely not flat.. people are buying, but enthusiast might be more of what you speak of for gaming being flat based on stale processor advancements.

Gaming PC market just hit 30 billion for first time. They are selling like mad now over consoles.

http://wccftech.com/pc-gaming-hardware-market-30-billion/

That's mainly due to gaming laptops and people moving up in SKUs (JPR uses system costs). The volume itself isn't moving and I guess that's what noko refers to. For the consoles they dont even sell 2/3rds of the previous consoles either.

 

[noko]

The markets definitely not flat.. people are buying, but enthusiast might be more of what you speak of for gaming being flat based on stale processor advancements.

Gaming PC market just hit 30 billion for first time. They are selling like mad now over consoles.

http://wccftech.com/pc-gaming-hardware-market-30-billion/

So for gaming PCs - it will come down to best value/$. Intel has some strong value gaming CPU's starting with the I5's - great motherboard for gaming starting in the low $100 and has a very solid chip set. 8core/16threads is not necessary for gaming yet and for that purpose it may hurt gaming due to frequency restraints. If AMD has some high frequency 6 core and 4 core versions and performs well then I see them doing good in that market. Still an I5 7600K for $249, good motherboard $150 makes a great gaming rig with a low cost. If AMD has a 4core/8thread solution at that price point, is faster, chipset doesn't suck - AMD should do OK. Same with the I7 7700K, if AMD has a 6core/12thread solution about the same price (performs well as in better) there as well.

The biggest issue, which may not be an issue for me is AMD 8core/16thread part goes on a restricted motherboard without all the bell and whistles. There is just no comparison on the platform differences between the 2011 and AM4 motherboards, 2011 gives you abundant PCIe lanes, more memory bandwidth and the list goes on and on and of course with a price tag to match but very good mother boards for 2011 socket can be had in the two hundred range.

 

[noko]

There isn't any dual socket AM4 boards. Its just 1 socket. Else you are moving to SP3 sockets.

So the question I guess is will AM4 support more then 24 lanes of PCIe? ECC memory?

AM4 looks like for consumer boards with the various chipsets X370 and down - what is their professional line? Like to see and hear more about that.

Do you know when Skylake E is going to be reviewed? CPU's, motherboards etc. ?

 

[Shintai]

So the question I guess is will AM4 support more then 24 lanes of PCIe? ECC memory?

AM4 looks like for consumer boards with the various chipsets X370 and down - what is their professional line? Like to see and hear more about that.

Do you know when Skylake E is going to be reviewed? CPU's, motherboards etc. ?

It wont support more than 18-20 lanes and the 4 for the chipset that I dont get why people keeping counting.

ECC? Maybe. There shouldn't be any technical reasons to why not.

Skylake-E? Tends to swing between june and late august. I would guess on the later.

 

[noko]

Hopefully AMD will speed up Intel somewhat meaning Ryzen is decent and competitive. Also force Intel to lower prices some what on their 8 core.

CPU has 24 PCIe 3 lanes, how they are configured is how they are configured.

 

[Shintai]

Hopefully AMD will speed up Intel somewhat meaning Ryzen is decent and competitive. Also force Intel to lower prices some what on their 8 core.

CPU has 24 PCIe 3 lanes, how they are configured is how they are configured.

Dont expect prices to change, unless Ryzen takes over Intel prices.

So you say we have to revise all CPU and chipset lanes for god knows how many years back to add 4 as well? If you buy Ryzen and put it on an AM4 X370 board you got 18-20 PCIe 3.0 lanes and 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes as default before any PLX.

 

[drescherjm]

Since next year Intel plans to have a 6 core mainstream part, I can see the Skylake X 8C / 16T enthusiast part move down to current 6C / 12T prices.

 

[Luka]

I just got Xeon 14/28 Retail on ebay for $345 running 3.0Ghz....Better deal than anything else on the market.

Again, Ryzen needs to be <$400 if AMD wants it to be a success otherwise you will be better with $350 Kaby Lake

 

[tangoseal]

I just got Xeon 14/28 Retail on ebay for $345 running 3.0Ghz....Better deal than anything else on the market.

Again, Ryzen needs to be <$400 if AMD wants it to be a success otherwise you will be better with $350 Kaby Lake

Wow man 28 threads lol... thats gonna be one heck of a productivity chip!

 

[Master_shake_]

It wont support more than 18-20 lanes and the 4 for the chipset that I dont get why people keeping counting.

ECC? Maybe. There shouldn't be any technical reasons to why not.

Skylake-E? Tends to swing between june and late august. I would guess on the later.

there is more than a good chance that asus or gigabyte will throw a plx chip on an am4 board and have more that 28 lanes.

 

[noko]

Dont expect prices to change, unless Ryzen takes over Intel prices.

So you say we have to revise all CPU and chipset lanes for god knows how many years back to add 4 as well? If you buy Ryzen and put it on an AM4 X370 board you got 18-20 PCIe 3.0 lanes and 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes as default before any PLX.

Not sure what you are talking about 20 pcie lanes. Ryzen CPU has 24 pcie 3.0, chipset has 8 pcie 2.0.

The only nitpick with X370 is that it has only eight PCIe lanes of its own. Coupled with the 24 PCIe lanes of Ryzen—16 for graphics, four for NVMe, and four to communicate with the chipset—users have 32 lanes to work with. That's comparable with Intel's mainstream chips but lacking compared to Broadwell-E. Crossfire and SLI certainly aren't as appealing as they used to be (and if Nvidia's recent moves are anything to go by, SLI isn't long for this world), but the rapid proliferation of PCIe-based storage means PCIe lanes are quickly becoming a prized commodity.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/amd-ryzen-motherboards-hype/

 

[Shintai]

Not sure what you are talking about 20 pcie lanes. Ryzen CPU has 24 pcie 3.0, chipset has 8 pcie 2.0.

Yes and 7700K got 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes with Z170 as well, right?

Oh wait, that's right, it got paired with a chipset so those lanes vanished and it ends up as 40!

Users dont have 32 lanes to work with on Ryzen, they have 26 or 28 with X370 depending on SATA configuration. And 8 of those are PCIe 2.0.

Is the I/O options on Ryzen really so bad that we have discuss this crap and make up numbers just to make it look better? Just accept it and get a PLX chip if you feel you miss some lanes. Its not something new and have been done for ages on both Intel and AMD.

What´s next. Are we going to count the 4 lanes to the CPU on the chipset as well? Then Ryzen can have 36 lanes!

 

[chithanh]

Silent data corruption is something that has no real lattitude with a typical gaming

So far I agree.

or home use PC considering the duty cycle.

There I disagree heavily. A single bit flip in a JPEG file can turn the whole file unusable. And you won't even notice it unless you open the file (opening the directory is not enough because the preview did not change).

Absolutely no detectable data corruption using FreeBSD and ZFS scrubs etc... No logs wth crash events... just rock solid stable.

Not all memory errors will show up in ZFS scrub, this depends on whether the bit flip happened before or after checksumming. Also if the corruption affects code, then yes, a program or the operating system might crash or behave incorrectly. But if it affects data, then there will be no crash.

As I have said historically AMD will more than likely include it as all of their past (true) enthusiast lines and chipsets have included it, where as intel you had to fork out your pension and a kidney to buy a xeon that could run it.

You can get Intel ECC support in cheap Core i3s and lowly Xeons. Only if you want high performance+ECC then you must pay through the nose. This was one big advantage of AMD sockets before FM1.

ECC? Maybe. There shouldn't be any technical reasons to why not.

Unfortunately, there are economic reasons as to why not. And AMD left out ECC support from FM1/2/2+ sockets presumably due to that.

 

[tangoseal]

Yes and 7700K got 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes with Z170 as well, right?

Oh wait, that's right, it got paired with a chipset so those lanes vanished and it ends up as 40!

Users dont have 32 lanes to work with on Ryzen, they have 26 or 28 with X370 depending on SATA configuration. And 8 of those are PCIe 2.0.

Is the I/O options on Ryzen really so bad that we have discuss this crap and make up numbers just to make it look better? Just accept it and get a PLX chip if you feel you miss some lanes. Its not something new and have been done for ages on both Intel and AMD.

What´s next. Are we going to count the 4 lanes to the CPU on the chipset as well? Then Ryzen can have 36 lanes!

What do you need 40 lanes for? The days of 4x sli and xfire are long over. Even add in cards dont use that many lanes.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Is the I/O options on Ryzen really so bad that we have discuss this crap and make up numbers just to make it look better? Just accept it and get a PLX chip if you feel you miss some lanes. Its not something new and have been done for ages on both Intel and AMD.

I thought you did that when you kept posting that benchlife FM3 picture which you knew was not accurate .