Who's planning to buy Zen?

Straight up! Are you buying a Zen?


  • Total voters
    415

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,743
Just curious if your gonna buy a Zen.

Regardless of whatever hear-say is on the streets, are you due for an upgrade, or are you just gonna buy one?

I am planning it unless they are a total disaster.

you can post why or why not ..

Maybe this will be an informative poll with unique points of views that others can benefit from.
 
Count me as a 'Yes' insofar that my line of work requires a LOT of threads, but does not pay enough for me to get a hold of high-end Xeons. if AMD can get out a CPU with the same rendering 'punch' as my current CPU, but with a bit better gaming performance for ~$450, I'm a convert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
We will see what happens. I am not gonna base my buying decisions on rumors before the product has even been released. If it significantly outperforms (at least 40% faster) my i5-3350p in multithreaded applications at a cost of $200 AND has equal or better single-thread performance then sure I could consider it.

Thing is I'm not in any rush to upgrade my system, I'm running Windows XP x64 and therefore I would have to run a X370 system without the chipset drivers (unless they surprise everyone by releasing XP drivers... yeah right). If the AM4 motherboards have Realtek/Atheros LAN and Audio chips, those usually have XP drivers still. So it's a lot more complicated issue for me, as much as I would like to have a brand new powerful AMD system, I am somewhat limited on driver support. And I'm not gonna use a new Windows version.

Why do you care if we are gonna buy it? You an AMD stockholder or something? :p
 
I'm barely hanging on with an Opteron 1389 (equal to quad-core 2.9GHz Phenom II). When the 1080 TI gets released it will be time for a platform upgrade for me… if AMD has new and shiny for me it will be on my short list, otherwise 7700k.
 
I'm at a 4690k, im pretty sure Zen will be a virtually a side-grade (on my standards), so im just gonna wait for Zen+. Eager to upgrade to AMD, cause intel's socket stuff is annoying me.
 
Hmmm ... if Zen can match (or surpass) Skylake (in my case, the i7-6700k) at stock speeds in games, with good overclocking room, decent temps, and a considerably lower price, then I guess I'm in. If not, my money will go to Intel. Micro Center's a hop away from my home, so I'm looking forward to this, either way. I've been waiting for an upgrade to my Xeon x5670 for some time now.
 
I'm at a 4690k, im pretty sure Zen will be a virtually a side-grade (on my standards), so im just gonna wait for Zen+. Eager to upgrade to AMD, cause intel's socket stuff is annoying me.

The second iteration of an architecture is nearly universally more successful, regardless of the succeess (or lack of) the original iteration. That's what I've learned in the last 20 years I've been following the CPU market.

AMD examples: Athlon 64 ClawHammer vs. Winchester/Venice - 130nm chips were still a success due to AMD64 release, but didn't overclock very well, 90nm chips were a huge success

Phenom vs Phenom II - A lot of issues with the original Phenom including the TLB fuck-up, but really the biggest problem was poor performance compared to Conroe, remedied in the Phenom II to a large extent.

In other words it is sensible to be more excited about Zen+.
 
I'll probably buy Zen if there is a 6 or 8 core model for less than $150 dollars.
 
Wait and see if worth it - so maybe. Plus if Intel reduces prices Intel may win out. Looking for 8 cores/16 threads or more.
 
I would be more interested in the 8C / 16 T if the price was over $400 meaning it will compete with the low end Intel enthusiast CPUs. However if it is a sub $200 (therefore another i5 competitor) I will most likely pass on the 8C / 16T at least for home. Remember AMD usually initially prices a CPU too high but then eventually adjusts the price to be a discount to what it believes is the main Intel CPU that is its competition.
 
Last edited:
I'm at a 4690k, im pretty sure Zen will be a virtually a side-grade (on my standards), so im just gonna wait for Zen+.

I still expect the 8C / 16T to be too much of a sidegrade for even the i7 970 6C / 12T I currently have. Although I would love to be proven wrong.. Anyways that is why I want to see the AMD server platform (and I am willing to pay >$1250 for the 16C / 32T if the performance is there in both single and 8+ threads).

Eager to upgrade to AMD, cause intel's socket stuff is annoying me.

I would like to be able to overclock and use ECC at the same time on an enthusiast level CPU that is a significant upgrade from my i7 970 in both single and 8+ threaded loads.
 
Last edited:
I'll probably buy Zen if there is a 6 or 8 core model for less than $150 dollars.

I believe AMD would only price the 8C / 16T at this level if it was only an i3 competitor. This would put AMD in a worse financial situation than they are today because then they would have to have all of their APUs at or lower than this price. With that said the lowest end 6C/ 12T may be less than $200 however and at least onve version of the 4C / 8T APU should be less than $200.
 
Last edited:
Wait and see if worth it - so maybe. Plus if Intel reduces prices Intel may win out. Looking for 8 cores/16 threads or more.

Exactly. I have no idea how someone could say they plan on buying something if they don't know what's coming.
 
I'm saying yes, but it really depends on how it comes out. I'm budgeting for a new gaming rig Jan/Feb, so that's really going to be my deciding factor.
 
If it's a viable alternative to Kaby Lake with overclocking capabilities taken into account as well then yes but otherwise no. :) Would like a 6 core cpu right now though but IPC is still important as well.

Can't vote until I know how it performs/overclocks.
 
Yes, of course I will but then again, I have been wanting to for a while anyways. Quad core processors are just not worth it for me and I would prefer not to spend $1000 to get an 8 core / 16 thread processor alone. I personally find the online reviews to be more of a blanket statement of things than an all encompassing list of absolute facts. Personally experience tends to trump online reviews in my experience. (I do like reading the reviews nonetheless.)
 
I'm still on X58, so I'm nearly due for an upgrade heh. It will either be Zen, or a 6700k. All depends on who gives me the better experience per $.
 
I'm due for an upgrade soon, so am holding for Zen to see how it performs/changes the market.

Currently using a FX 8320, and had been using the same mobo setup for a number of years until it finally died last summer (replaced the 890fx with a cheapo 970). Seymour appreciates that type of longevity.

With that said, my next round of upgrades I'd like to enter the 4k gaming scene, so will need something with more oomph. Hoping that Zen will provide that oomph, but will switch to Intel if need be.
 
I will be buying/assembling one for work when it comes out, to play with and test a bit. As for any of my desktops that I use at work/home, probably not [at least at first].
 
wow, I didn't realize that Zen would be in the same performance ballpark as Skylake. That's impressive, even the intel fanboys would have to admit.

I'd like to do a small upgrade because my stinking cpu doesn't overclock worth a shit. I just don't know if it's really worth the extra cost. I have plenty of DDR3. I've been thinking about buying an i7 6700k, but maybe I'll wait for Zen to see how it performs.
 
I didn't realize that Zen would be in the same performance ballpark as Skylake.

I say it will not be on a per core bases. I mean a 40% IPC increase will not put the per core performance at Skylake levels. That is unless AMD lied about the 40% and instead the IPC improvement it was actually 60%. For multithreaded loads the 8C / 16T Zen should compete with Intels lowest end i7 on the enthusiast platform provided the clocks of the 8C / 16T chip are over 3GHz.

Although you did say ballpark maybe depending on your definition of ballpark.
 
Last edited:
No, but only because I just bought a new system. if I hadn't I'd be all over it. Same would have been true for the RX480 over the GTX 1060 if they had bothered to release 3rd party boards within a reasonable time frame, although I do love my 1060.
 
If it is equal or faster than my 6800k and I can get 2 more cores, I am in. I wish there was a "depends" selection on the poll.
 
I voted yes even though i have no plans / need for it. However i will upgrade at some point and it will be amd. In my household right now, i have 5 amd rigs and one 2p intel server
 
Honestly, I think I'm more looking forward to DDR4 and NVME/M.2 support being on die. Having moved from the NUC to this AMD setup, I see HUGE latency and slowness in the access of files over the NUC.

But yeah, MB/CPU, AIO, DDR4 are day one purchases. That'll be a chunk of cash, so a nice 512G 960 Pro will need to wait a month or so.
 
Depends. I'm still on my 2500k. I'd like to upgrade and retire this box. If they have a 6 core (true not shared fpu) that is haswell or better IPC in the $300 range I'll probably bite. If not then I'll stick it out longer. I prob won't upgrade my PC for a long time as long as it's only quads.
 
Wait and see. The one it'll replace (see sig) would be the FX8350 HTPC/Gaming machine. TDP is important on that one due to the case. It's gotta beat the FX8350 temps and at least equal its speeds.
 
It's gotta beat the FX8350 temps and at least equal its speeds

I have no doubt about either of these. Well for temps I assume you mean heat produced / energy used as temperature may actually be higher for with more energy efficient processor. With 2 times the modules the 8C / 16T will surely beat the FX8350 in highly threaded applications. I am hoping / expecting each Zen core to have at least as many transistors as a bulldozer module had. The # of transistors per core should be very similar to Intel this time around. At least that is how I expect AMDs version of HT to work.
 
Last edited:
The only way I could even consider buying zen it will be a server piece I will need to see the reviews and it will have to be a piece the beats a 10 core Xeon in both performance and power consumption by around 30% and price has to be similar. (Cause something like that will force me to upgrade). Otherwise I will just wait till end of next year as my regular upgrade cycle for CPU's and see what best workstation pieces for the price are out there at that time.

For my gaming systems, I have more than enough horsepower in the near future to keep going and when it comes time to upgrade my workstation, those 2 10 core cpu's can be split up and I can use them in my gaming system.
 
Im okay if the stock performance is identical to an I7 - Haswell but overclocked can run circles around top end latest gizmos from Intel. Im all about the H two O baby!
 
an I7 - Haswell but overclocked can run circles around top end latest gizmos from Intel.

Wouldn't that pretty much require GF to have a better 14nm process than Intel? I can guarantee GF will not have achieve that initially if ever.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top