Zen release date announced!

What gets me is how some of you just do nothing but complain. No positive thoughts what so ever, and I mean positive toward AMD.

First if any of you spent the same amount of time reading any and all news articles released about the new Zen architecture as you do crapping on AMD threads then you would easily see that <FX is not going to happen as far as clock+clock. I will say I don't expect FX users > 4.6Ghz to need to upgrade to Zen immediately, it will likely appear more of a side grade. Seriously I hope I am wrong and it is better by a long shot but when the likelihood of Zen hitting 3.6-3.8Ghz max against FXs >4.6Ghz it is far more likely a side grade. I expect better with the second iteration.

And I contest that AMD FXs have been more than adequate for the lions share of the market, but for the asinine rantings of rabid morons plastered across forums world-wide, ignorance has reigned supreme.

Get what you want. Research to ensure it can meet your needs. The moment you belittle another for their choices is the moment you prove how little you know and how little anyone should seriously take your ignorance.
 
jmilcher said:
You are a great consumer. I appreciate you wasting your money so we can pretend there is some competition in the cpu market.

Meanwhile I will continue to pay for the increased performance and efficiency I am getting with my Intel setups.

I'don't love to have to research and debate which team to go with on my next build. But in the last 10 years that has not happened.
Click to expand...

/me me pulls out measuring tape.... tisk tisk....
 
Shintai said:
So in other words, you already decided completely blindly. No regard to any metrics or anything else. Wouldn't it be easier just to send them money? Because we already established how it performs is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
That has not stopped you from spewing out all sorts of negatives for something not even released yet :rolleyes:.

Unless you think AMD completely lied about 40% IPC increase, the one and only metric using Blender, not sure what else AMD really released dealing with Zen metrics. In other words you don't have a clue either good or bad on Zen, just opinion at best. Same here as well. I will see what it does and also the new platform as well. Will there be growing pains - I would think so - will they be resolved - I think so. Will I buy - MAYBE.

What I do find funny is how people say or think AMD users have it so miserable or such low performance. I've have not that experience with my many AMD cpu's including current 8350 and 9590. Plus some folks think or seem to think they can save us poor AMD users from misery or something :ROFLMAO: with their off the wall posts that is mostly gibberish (like this one :notworthy:).
 
Unless you think AMD completely lied about 40% IPC increase
Click to expand...

The problem here is that a lot of people are expecting significantly larger than a 40% IPC increase. I mean a 40% improvement would put Zen somewhere below haswell-e performance.
 
drescherjm said:
The problem here is that a lot of people are expecting significantly larger than a 40% IPC increase. I mean a 40% improvement would put Zen somewhere below haswell-e performance.
Click to expand...
That is what I expect around Haswell or lower but also I am more interested in total cpu performance from use of all cores. For those just gaming an I5 6600K is about the best Bang/$ even beating the I7 6700K in more games then not (not by that much but it is there). I would prefer the I7 due to the extra threads available.

The IPC gains from Haswell to Skylake is not that spectacular either as a note.
 
drescherjm said:
The problem here is that a lot of people are expecting significantly larger than a 40% IPC increase. I mean a 40% improvement would put Zen somewhere below haswell-e performance.
Click to expand...
Funny part is that these "higher" numbers aren't from us AMD posters but the negative [south end of a northbound donkey]-holes that use it as if that is the case.

I have, as well as others here, pointed out that the first iteration will likely be efficient but not clock high enough to eradicate the previous deficiencies. I still believe that it WILL be 40% higher IPC than Piledriver which is what I think the original release was touting. At some point it became excavator.

We AMD guys for the most part have been rational and if you look in the other threads will see that most of us spend more time trying to re-introduce rational than touting AMDs glory.
 
JustReason said:
Funny part is that these "higher" numbers aren't from us AMD posters but the negative [south end of a northbound donkey]-holes that use it as if that is the case.

I have, as well as others here, pointed out that the first iteration will likely be efficient but not clock high enough to eradicate the previous deficiencies. I still believe that it WILL be 40% higher IPC than Piledriver which is what I think the original release was touting. At some point it became excavator.

We AMD guys for the most part have been rational and if you look in the other threads will see that most of us spend more time trying to re-introduce rational than touting AMDs glory.
Click to expand...

Aren't we, in a basic sense, supposed to be computer enthusiasts? This is a hobby- and the religiosity of some people regarding a company or platform is strangely disturbing to me.

Who cares who wins as long as the competition goes on.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
Aren't we, in a basic sense, supposed to be computer enthusiasts? This is a hobby- and the religiosity of some people regarding a company or platform is strangely disturbing to me.

Who cares who wins as long as the competition goes on.
Click to expand...

Exactly! You do not see me in the Intel section calling people senseless or wasteful? Nope! I am in there giving proper recommendations, at least in my opinion. I am an AMD fan and have not made that a secret at all but, I am also an IT professional and am fully aware of what works in any given situation and what does not.
 
I saw some early benchmarks for the higher end, chinese have samples, the speed was only around that of an I5 6600k. It's no where near that of an Intel 6850k
 
thesmokingman said:
2017 is gonna be an interesting year for the little shrimp amd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even with the lower clock speed, I fully expect it to be faster the existing FX processors that I own. Between the processor no longer using the CMT architecture, which was good in its own right but required specific support that never really materialized, DDR 4 support and PCIe 3 support, it will be faster than the older architecture. Intel has not produced a completely new architecture since they released Sandy Bridge and I would have to seriously wonder if they have anything completely new going forward in the near future.
 
I would have to seriously wonder if they have anything completely new going forward in the near future.
Click to expand...

They will have to when the nodes can no longer be shrunk. I mean 10nm will happen but we don't know if 7nm is going to work.
 
which was good in its own right but required specific support that never really materialized
Click to expand...

It was a very bad idea for a desktop CPU. On the server side it possibly could work but even then the IPC needed to be higher and the clocks lower. Having an energy inefficient design (compared to the competition) was not a recipe for success in the server market.
 
All I know is between Zen and Skylake X I may finally have a reason to upgrade from X58.
 
drescherjm said:
It was a very bad idea for a desktop CPU. On the server side it possibly could work but even then the IPC needed to be higher and the clocks lower. Having an energy inefficient design (compared to the competition) was not a recipe for success in the server market.
Click to expand...
Well honestly you have to remember they were shooting for 6-8Ghz on the FXs and had they done it they would have handed Intel their behinds. But as they say with what ifs and such.
 
Well honestly you have to remember they were shooting for 6-8Ghz on the FXs
Click to expand...

And defying several laws of physics in the process... Or maybe they expected to invent a new process that was twice as good as than 32mn SOI.
 
This is great news. Even if Zen ends up being slightly slower than, say, Skylake, we may end up with loads of i3 on the cheap. I would love an unlocked lower freq i3. Seriously, first time in the last almost 10 years I'm reading actual good news. It better not be a dud, though, because we know that happened during the Thuban era. But if it's decent, then we're in for some great times.
 
drescherjm said:
And defying several laws of physics in the process... Or maybe they expected to invent a new process that was twice as good as than 32mn SOI.
Click to expand...

Do you mean reaching the RF spectrum and having trouble keeping the signals from 'escaping' the wires? or some other factor?
 
JustReason said:
Well honestly you have to remember they were shooting for 6-8Ghz on the FXs and had they done it they would have handed Intel their behinds. But as they say with what ifs and such.
Click to expand...

I have never heard about that, so sources please. If that was the case they are complete idiots after Intel showed it couldn't be done due to physics limitations.

FX however is made as a throughput processor. And I am sure that was the goal and not 6-8Ghz. Because 6-8Ghz sounds like a bad excuse from people working backwards to get the desired performance.

AMD uses "moar cores" to deal with vastly inferior ST performance. Just as Napples does. From the looks of it 32 cores there is equal to 16-18 Haswell cores (Specint2006).

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/mel...enCompute-mit-ROCm-aber-kein-Zen-3491050.html
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
I have never heard about that, so sources please. If that was the case they are complete idiots after Intel showed it couldn't be done due to physics limitations.

FX however is made as a throughput processor. And I am sure that was the goal and not 6-8Ghz. Because 6-8Ghz sounds like a bad excuse from people working backwards to get the desired performance.

AMD uses "moar cores" to deal with vastly inferior ST performance. Just as Napples does. From the looks of it 32 cores there is equal to 16-18 Haswell cores (Specint2006).

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/mel...enCompute-mit-ROCm-aber-kein-Zen-3491050.html
Click to expand...
Then it shows just how little you know. You come here and pretend you know everything when in fact you know nothing.

Look at the IMC/cache speeds and you see it easily there. Besides there are quite a few owners running at 5.4Ghz now so I am not so sure 6 was a physics limitation. The module design was for higher clocks not because of ST performance. Had the clocks made even just 6Ghz, Intel would have been slower with ST and MT performance at the time. I gather than just ruffles your feathers little chicken. But it didn't come to pass so you can relax.
 
Well, I see once again, the same people are doing everything they can to derail an AMD thread. :D :eek::rolleyes::sneaky: I am going to have to keep an eye on DDR4 prices and sales to pick some up on the cheap, if at all possible. I figure 32GB for each machine will do just fine and DDR 4 2400 speeds should be sufficient for me.

The cool thing is with PCIe 3 16 lane x 2 slots, my R9 Fury mGPU setup, which is already working good, will work even better and with less power consumption overall. I do have to make sure I order a AM4 bracket for my Noctua NH-D15 cooler early on as well and probably pick up another cooler to replace my Cooler Master 212 Evo at work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
the same people are doing everything they can to derail an AMD thread.
Click to expand...

Didn't you start that derailing of the thread??

I mean to me the thread derailed here:

CMT architecture, which was good in its own right but required specific support that never really materialized
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JustReason said:
Then it shows just how little you know. You come here and pretend you know everything when in fact you know nothing.

Look at the IMC/cache speeds and you see it easily there. Besides there are quite a few owners running at 5.4Ghz now so I am not so sure 6 was a physics limitation. The module design was for higher clocks not because of ST performance. Had the clocks made even just 6Ghz, Intel would have been slower with ST and MT performance at the time. I gather than just ruffles your feathers little chicken. But it didn't come to pass so you can relax.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add the sources for your claim.
 
drescherjm said:
Didn't you start that derailing of the thread??

I mean to me the thread derailed here:
Click to expand...

Nope, I did not derail my own thread at all. Also, you can have your own opinion about what I said but that does not make it right. :) Take a look at the Linux side of things when the architecture is fully taken advantage of and you will see my point. Yes, there were certain things that needed fixing, such as cache speed but, the CMT does work when used correctly. (In Windows, it has never been fully taken advantage of and never will.)
 
If the thread didn't derail at your comment, where did it derail at? Was it my answer to your comment? Or the point that JustReason made? With that said is completely pointless to argue over who started the thread to go offtrack..
 
drescherjm said:
If the thread didn't derail at your comment, where did it derail at? Was it my answer to your comment? Or the point that JustReason made? With that said is completely pointless to argue over who started the thread to go offtrack..
Click to expand...

Good, so there is no point in you arguing about what I said, that is fine. ;) I just wish Zen was out now because I really do want to build another computer. (I enjoy that just as much as someone who loves getting under the hood of their car or cars.) The wait is going to be excruciating. :D
 
I just wish Zen was out now because I really do want to build another computer.
Click to expand...

I have been waiting for a Zen based APU for over a year now. My linux based core2quad HTPC will be 10 years old next week. Although I know the Zen based APUs are still a way out I am interested in seeing how the 8C / 16T compares. As for replacing my windows server that has an i7 970 6C / 12T CPU I think I will want to go for AMDs server platform for that. Provided there is at least a 3.5GHz Turbo on the 16 C / 32T CPU. For my usage of this workstation I need good single threaded performance and good multithreaded performance (and as a programmer I could certainly use the threads). I realize that the 16 core will be a > $1250 CPU and I am willing to pay that if the performance is there.
 
ManofGod said:
Good, so there is no point in you arguing about what I said, that is fine. ;) I just wish Zen was out now because I really do want to build another computer. (I enjoy that just as much as someone who loves getting under the hood of their car or cars.) The wait is going to be excruciating. :D
Click to expand...
Save yourself the wait and buy a 6700k on BF for around $260 (or at MC now). Build and enjoy without waiting another 2 months for something slower and priced the same.
 
doz said:
Save yourself the wait and buy a 6700k on BF for around $260 (or at MC now). Build and enjoy without waiting another 2 months for something slower and priced the same.
Click to expand...
Guess you haven't seen a lot of his posts... BEEN THERE DONE THAT. And slower is completely subjective in real world usage.
 
This reeks of AMD marketing.... my bet is a paper release with select demos in reviewers hands in January with volume shipments arriving late February.
 
Bandalo said:
I'm just stunned by all the people who seem to have made purchase decisions about Zen before the hardware has even been finalized. You MIGHT be justified about making decisions like that on the Intel side, since they've had a pretty steady (but small) performance jump every new release. But AMD hasn't had anything this new in a while, how about we wait and see before sending them all your cash?
Click to expand...

Stunned? Come on. We're not talking about stock investments here. It's a ~$300 chip for a hobbyist/entertainment/enthusiast product. If some people are excited to give a new product a spin, why does it matter? I buy all kinds of PC hardware on a whim. Just to give it a shot, pop it in a secondary box, and just see how it does. Sure, I've got my NV+Intel primary system for playing games on, but I've got other PCs in the house. I've put various Intel, AMD, Nvidia, parts in all of them at one time or another, whether it was better or not. I wanted to try the 3 core AMD processor when it was new. Just to see how it was. I popped it in my GHTPC in the living room, with whatever the mid-range card of the moment was, and gave it a shot. JUST FOR FUN. In fact, most of that system is still in use in my daughter's room. I've been thinking it would be cool to pop a 480 in my current living room PC, just to see if I like it. At ~$200, why not? I've got a GTX 1070 in another system that I already know mops the floor with it, but it's still something I'd be interested in doing.

Sounds like the OP is excited to try out a new AMD processor. The first truly new AMD architecture in a while too. Maybe it won't kill an I7, but if it's a nice chip overall, faster than what he's got, then it's an interesting buy IMO. I'd love to build a Zen system just for fun. I'm not exactly chomping to get one, but I'll definitely give it a whirl, just because I like to try things like this. I'll still probably wait until I see a little more info on it, but with what they have riding on it, I can't imagine it being a total flop. They may as well not even make it if they know it's a flop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
J3RK said:
Stunned? Come on. We're not talking about stock investments here. It's a ~$300 chip for a hobbyist/entertainment/enthusiast product. If some people are excited to give a new product a spin, why does it matter? I buy all kinds of PC hardware on a whim. Just to give it a shot, pop it in a secondary box, and just see how it does. Sure, I've got my NV+Intel primary system for playing games on, but I've got other PCs in the house. I've put various Intel, AMD, Nvidia, parts in all of them at one time or another, whether it was better or not. I wanted to try the 3 core AMD processor when it was new. Just to see how it was. I popped it in my GHTPC in the living room, with whatever the mid-range card of the moment was, and gave it a shot. JUST FOR FUN. In fact, most of that system is still in use in my daughter's room. I've been thinking it would be cool to pop a 480 in my current living room PC, just to see if I like it. At ~$200, why not? I've got a GTX 1070 in another system that I already know mops the floor with it, but it's still something I'd be interested in doing.

Sounds like the OP is excited to try out a new AMD processor. The first truly new AMD architecture in a while too. Maybe it won't kill an I7, but if it's a nice chip overall, faster than what he's got, then it's an interesting buy IMO. I'd love to build a Zen system just for fun. I'm not exactly chomping to get one, but I'll definitely give it a whirl, just because I like to try things like this. I'll still probably wait until I see a little more info on it, but with what they have riding on it, I can't imagine it being a total flop. They may as well not even make it if they know it's a flop.
Click to expand...

I just like to make more informed decisions on some things. At least see a few reviews before I spend money. I could see spending $10-20 on a game or movie without reading reviews, but to blindly spend $300 (plus >$120 on a motherboard) without ANY research or reviews? At least get some idea of how the actual released hardware performs. Maybe we've got very different ideas of what counts as disposable income. I could afford to buy and use a $300 CPU, but I can't afford to throw away $300 on a CPU just to see if it's fun or not. I'm just a poor government employee.
 
Bandalo said:
I just like to make more informed decisions on some things. At least see a few reviews before I spend money. I could see spending $10-20 on a game or movie without reading reviews, but to blindly spend $300 (plus >$120 on a motherboard) without ANY research or reviews? At least get some idea of how the actual released hardware performs. Maybe we've got very different ideas of what counts as disposable income. I could afford to buy and use a $300 CPU, but I can't afford to throw away $300 on a CPU just to see if it's fun or not. I'm just a poor government employee.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. A bit of research is definitely good. However, in some cases, I think we already know a great deal. Sure more information is better. Take Zen though. It's been a long time coming, a fairly steady stream of information seeps out here and there. We have some small chunks of real information. We have a very rough ballpark of performance based on some fairly recent samples. Sure we definitely do not have the full picture, but there is some reason for excitement. Some people have some degree of confidence because a trusted designer worked on the project too, and are excited to see what he brought to the table. I don't know. It's actually the first processor in a while that has some degree of mystery around it too. It's not just the next 5% upgrade of an already rock-steady-well-performing Intel line. It's something that has the potential to change the landscape a tiny bit. Even if it's just putting AMD in a slightly more competitive position after steadily going down hill over the past decade. IMO, there's enough reason there to want to try it out. Some people will wait, read up on reviews, see what real users think, get some real world data, then jump. Some will jump because it's new and interesting, and why not be one of the first to put it through its paces if you're able?

Personally, I'll hold off for a bit, as I'm not in any way hurting for a new build. However, I am intrigued. I haven't had an AMD based system in a while, and building a little Zen+Polaris system could be a fun diversion.

I get what you're saying though. If it's meant to maybe replace one's main system for a few years, the decision is a bit more critical, and then yes, I would agree that the more information the better approach is the way to go.
 
J3RK said:
I agree with you on that. A bit of research is definitely good. However, in some cases, I think we already know a great deal. Sure more information is better. Take Zen though. It's been a long time coming, a fairly steady stream of information seeps out here and there. We have some small chunks of real information. We have a very rough ballpark of performance based on some fairly recent samples. Sure we definitely do not have the full picture, but there is some reason for excitement. Some people have some degree of confidence because a trusted designer worked on the project too, and are excited to see what he brought to the table. I don't know. It's actually the first processor in a while that has some degree of mystery around it too. It's not just the next 5% upgrade of an already rock-steady-well-performing Intel line. It's something that has the potential to change the landscape a tiny bit. Even if it's just putting AMD in a slightly more competitive position after steadily going down hill over the past decade. IMO, there's enough reason there to want to try it out. Some people will wait, read up on reviews, see what real users think, get some real world data, then jump. Some will jump because it's new and interesting, and why not be one of the first to put it through its paces if you're able?

Personally, I'll hold off for a bit, as I'm not in any way hurting for a new build. However, I am intrigued. I haven't had an AMD based system in a while, and building a little Zen+Polaris system could be a fun diversion.

I get what you're saying though. If it's meant to maybe replace one's main system for a few years, the decision is a bit more critical, and then yes, I would agree that the more information the better approach is the way to go.
Click to expand...

That's where I'd disagree. We have NO concrete info on what Zen well actually be on release. We have some leaked parts that might be desktop, might be server. Wildly different claims on clock speeds and features. From what I've read, it's a complete unknown. You have a lot of AMD fans very hopefully about what will be released, and a lot of Intel fans dismissive of whatever comes out.

With Intel, we generally know ahead of time about where a new CPU will perform. Every release is consistent, with a small bump in either IPC or clock rate or both. With Intel, a new CPU isn't really a gamble, you know you're going to get something reliable, and probably a little faster than last gen. You might get 5% faster, you might get 15% faster, might overclock a little better than last year, or maybe a bit worse.

With Zen, it's new territory. Even if I had millions of dollars to play with tech and order whatever I wanted, I'd STILL hold off until some actual review samples or release hardware had been out. I might not wait until I'd seen 4-5 solid, reputable reviews were out, but I'd at least wait until I'd seen 1 or 2. It's a totally gamble otherwise. They could be rock stars with better than Skylake IPC and overclock to the moon. Or they could be dogs, slower than Haswell and zero overclocking headroom.

I just don't see the benefit of buying right out the gate, other than being able to claim "first" on some internet forum or something. What would waiting a couple weeks cost you?
 
Bandalo said:
That's where I'd disagree. We have NO concrete info on what Zen well actually be on release. We have some leaked parts that might be desktop, might be server. Wildly different claims on clock speeds and features. From what I've read, it's a complete unknown. You have a lot of AMD fans very hopefully about what will be released, and a lot of Intel fans dismissive of whatever comes out.

With Intel, we generally know ahead of time about where a new CPU will perform. Every release is consistent, with a small bump in either IPC or clock rate or both. With Intel, a new CPU isn't really a gamble, you know you're going to get something reliable, and probably a little faster than last gen. You might get 5% faster, you might get 15% faster, might overclock a little better than last year, or maybe a bit worse.

With Zen, it's new territory. Even if I had millions of dollars to play with tech and order whatever I wanted, I'd STILL hold off until some actual review samples or release hardware had been out. I might not wait until I'd seen 4-5 solid, reputable reviews were out, but I'd at least wait until I'd seen 1 or 2. It's a totally gamble otherwise. They could be rock stars with better than Skylake IPC and overclock to the moon. Or they could be dogs, slower than Haswell and zero overclocking headroom.

I just don't see the benefit of buying right out the gate, other than being able to claim "first" on some internet forum or something. What would waiting a couple weeks cost you?
Click to expand...
Each there own, some have extra money to tinker with others take a more prudent approach. I am more incline this time to wait to see how the whole platform irons out and what are the best choices. Folks go out and buy Intel systems on first day as well, also upgrade from one generation to the next the whole system with a measly 5% increase in performance - probably more for the hell of it.

It is kinda exciting a whole new generation of x86/A64 Arch is hitting the streets soon - I expect some growing pains and advancements as in clock speed may have a lot of room to improve upon. Plus if it drives down the price of Intel stuff that is only a plus even if someone does not even will own or buy anything AMD. So even for Intel Fan Boys, AMD Zen is a good thing for them if it kicks ass.
 
I would wait..... I waited for bulldozer, and then went with an X58 system. Looking as I still run an X58 Xeon. I think I made the right call.

Patience is a virtue. TRUST ME Kyle will benchmark Zen just like he did faildozer. And the truth will come out again. Do I want Zen to fail? O hell no, if Zen is really that good of a 8core/16threat CPU and priced decently. That means Intel might have to lower prices.

And competition is good!
 
Last edited:
Brackle said:
I would wait..... I waited for bulldozer, and then went with an X58 system. Looking as I still run an X58 Xeon. I think I made the right call.

Patience is a virtue. TRUST ME Kyle will benchmark Zen just like he did faildozer. And the truth will come out again. Do I want Zen to fail? O hell no, if Zen is really that good of a 8core/16threat CPU and priced decently. That means Intel might have to lower prices.

And competition is good!
Click to expand...

Same here on all fronts, W3690 still not bottlenecking with what I throw at it.. But it would be nice to finally play in UEFI or something else new heh
 
you have to be a pretty hard fanboy if you dont want somebody to come out with somehting exciting new thats better and faster.
 
SvenBent said:
you have to be a pretty hard fanboy if you dont want somebody to come out with somehting exciting new thats better and faster.
Click to expand...

Seriously I don't get fanboys. They bitch and moan about companies like Comcast having a monopoly in their area and raping them on their service. Then they hope a company like AMD would go out of business so they can be raped by Intel/Nvidia. We need competition to keep prices low and innovation coming. With that said I am waiting to see how Zen works out before upgrading my CPU early next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top