AMD Confirms, Zen On Track For Q4 2016 Availability On High-End Desktops

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The error being a loyal fan to a company. Only a fool would do that.

LOL, acting as if you don't do that for Intel.

 

[Vesku]

I remember the CEO of AMD claiming that it wanted to move out of the budget CPU market. I used to thin that Zen was meant to try to compete with the typical desktop cpu market, but I think we all know that won't happen for gaming. Kabylake will crush it in single threaded performance.

But maybe that isn't their goal at all? Maybe they were planning to compete with the enthusiast chips all along? If they can't compete with the typical desktop cpus, perhaps they will instead target the enthusiast crowd with their 8 core cpus. That means AMD would essentially be forfeiting the typical gaming market, $200-$300, altogether.

Wouldn't that mean they destroy their budget build niche though? Then again, you could argue they don't even fill that niche anymore. Purchasing an i3, and then upgrading it to an i5 later would likely be the better method for a budget system.

Sounds about right for AMD, APUs for the low end non-gaming and high core count Zen priced against entry level Intel -E processors.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I think I was wrong, apparently Zen will have 4 core variants as well. Though that would be roughly the equivalent of an i7 Haswell. Why would anyone even be interested in that, unless it was priced quite low.

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/37649-first-zen-chips-will-be-quad-core

"Some of AMD's first Zen based CPUs and APUs will be quad-core."

"For AMD to build chips with more than 4 cores, the company will have to scale up the number of such "quad-core units." A mainstream APU will likely feature just one unit, with four cores. A high-end desktop chip will likely feature two units, making up 8 cores, and 16 MB of total L3 cache, 8 MB shared between four cores, each. Bigger enterprise Opteron chips could take that count up to 4 units, making up 16 cores, and 32 MB of L3 cache. What also makes this "quad-core unit" different from a module is that it's divisible. You can, in theory, carve out dual-core parts using these units."

 

[MrTeal]

I remember the CEO of AMD claiming that it wanted to move out of the budget CPU market. I used to thin that Zen was meant to try to compete with the typical desktop cpu market, but I think we all know that won't happen for gaming. Kabylake will crush it in single threaded performance.

But maybe that isn't their goal at all? Maybe they were planning to compete with the enthusiast chips all along? If they can't compete with the typical desktop cpus, perhaps they will instead target the enthusiast crowd with their 8 core cpus. That means AMD would essentially be forfeiting the typical gaming market, $200-$300, altogether.

Wouldn't that mean they destroy their budget build niche though? Then again, you could argue they don't even fill that niche anymore. Purchasing an i3, and then upgrading it to an i5 later would likely be the better method for a budget system.

Nothing you're saying is consistent or makes any sense. How will Zen obliterate Haswell-E in heavily multithreaded workloads, but only the 6 core version, while tying the 8-core HS-E, but getting crushed by Kaby Lake in single threaded performance.

Is your threshold for crushing and dominating 10-30%?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

yes

 

[MrTeal]

yes

What kind of hyperbole would you use for the current situation then, where a 140W 5960X is nearly twice as fast as a 220W FX-9590 in R15 at stock, and with an even larger gap when both are OCed?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

What kind of hyperbole would you use for the current situation then, where a 140W 5960X is nearly twice as fast as a 220W FX-9590 in R15 at stock, and with an even larger gap when both are OCed?

It's so far out of it's league, it's like comparing apples and oranges. The 9590 has half of the number of threads, and far worse ipc. You can't even compare to the 5960x in multithreaded applications.

Each generation of intel CPUs is about 5% more performance? Compared to that, it would seem like a massive increase to me, especially given amds current position.

 

[Maxima1]

AMD tried to sell FX9590 at 800$+ in 2013. They will take all the money they can.

The error being a loyal fan to a company. Only a fool would do that.

So why is it that if AMD went away, Intel will lower prices and progress/offerings will be optimal for consumers?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Well the 5960x is overpriced by a good $400, so I think we all know what would happen if AMD wasn't competing in a market.

 

[Phynaz]

It's so far out of it's league, it's like comparing apples and oranges. The 9590 has half of the number of threads, and far worse ipc. You can't even compare to the 5960x in multithreaded applications.

Each generation of intel CPUs is about 5% more performance? Compared to that, it would seem like a massive increase to me, especially given amds current position.

So now it's about threads? You said it was about CPUs. So you expect a 16 thread AMD cpu to obliterate av12 thread Intel cpu.

So twice the number of threads is apples and oranges, but 50% more is not.

You're all over the map here, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with both companies current and future products. You really do sound misinformed.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So now it's about threads? You said it was about CPUs. So you expect a 16 thread AMD cpu to obliterate av12 thread Intel cpu.

So twice the number of threads is apples and oranges, but 50% more is not.

You're all over the map here, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with both companies current and future products. You really do sound misinformed.

It will obliterate it in the same sense the 5960x obliterates the 5820k.

You are trying to compare an OC'd $150 CPU to a $1000 enthusiast CPU. It's laughable, and it proves nothing, except your bias against AMD.

I am sure it looks that way from your perspective with those fanboy goggles wrapped so tight around your head.


Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[erunion]

Well the 5960x is overpriced by a good $400, so I think we all know what would happen if AMD wasn't competing in a market.

let me try to follow your logic.

5960x is overpriced. AMD is currently competing in the market. thus AMD doesn't stop Intel from overpricing.

Thanks, got it.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

let me try to follow your logic.

5960x is overpriced. AMD is currently competing in the market. thus AMD doesn't stop Intel from overpricing.

Thanks, got it.

There are different markets within the cpu industry.... AMD is not part of the enthusiast market atm. Look at the price of the ivy bridge-e CPUs. They are more expensive than the Haswells! The 4960x almost never dropped below 1k.

Now what does that look like? That's someone taking the piss, because they have no competition.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4960X+@+3.60GHz&id=2026

 

[mysticjbyrd]

It does in the server.

AMD did have the best CPUs in the past, and they still didn't get the server market. A monopoly can easily keep superior products off the market.

 

[frozentundra123456]

let me try to follow your logic.

5960x is overpriced. AMD is currently competing in the market. thus AMD doesn't stop Intel from overpricing.

Thanks, got it.

Actually, AMD doesnt really have anything in the consumer market that competes performance wise with even the 5820k, much less 5960x. If Zen lives up to half the hype, it will be interesting to see how the pricing falls out, both for Zen and Intel HEDT.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Haswell-E is old. It's about to be replaced by Broadwell-E, which will come out long before Zen reaches the shelf.

Yet, they somehow can't imagine how a new 8 core Zen in 2017 could beat a 6 core 5820k from Aug of 2014. It doesn't even register. As if AMD was only 3 years behind intel, their worlds would shatter.

If this was based on AMDs old architecture I could understand, but they are basically copying intel again. Even if Zen meets all expectations, AMD is still a mile behind of intel.

 

[erunion]

There are different markets within the cpu industry.... AMD is not part of the enthusiast market atm. Look at the price of the ivy bridge-e CPUs. They are more expensive than the Haswells! The 4960x almost never dropped below 1k.

Now what does that look like? That's someone taking the piss, because they have no competition.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4960X+@+3.60GHz&id=2026

I was poking fun before, but since you persist here is a serious reply. your assessment shows a lack of understanding. Intel has maintained the $1000 price point for well over a decade with their extreme editions, Intel even sold $1k P4 EE against AMDs best chips.

Also, Intel is well known for not discounting old chips. They maintain their price until they sell out, as you've just learned.

In other words, things you think show a lack of completion are simply business as usual and have been for a long time.

 

[jhu]

AMD did have the best CPUs in the past, and they still didn't get the server market. A monopoly can easily keep superior products off the market.

AMD, at that time, was already selling everything it made. They didn't have the capacity to make more.

 

[ElFenix]

AMD, at that time, was already selling everything it made. They didn't have the capacity to make more.

could have upped the price, then.

 

[AtenRa]

Haswell-E is old. It's about to be replaced by Broadwell-E, which will come out long before Zen reaches the shelf.

Yet, they somehow can't imagine how a new 8 core Zen in 2017 could beat a 6 core 5820k from Aug of 2014. It doesn't even register. As if AMD was only 3 years behind intel, their worlds would shatter.

If this was based on AMDs old architecture I could understand, but they are basically copying intel again. Even if Zen meets all expectations, AMD is still a mile behind of intel.

I will say that it is possible for the 8 Core 14nm ZEN to easily beat the 6-core 22nm Haswell-E in MT loads at way lower power usage.

But it all comes down to price and what the competition has at the time of release. If 8-core ZEN is equal to 6-core Broadwell-E then it should be a little cheaper perhaps. Add the cheaper motherboard and less ram modules and you have a winner at the $400 price. But if they will price it at $600-800 at release time because of low volumes, then that will stigmatize ZEN and they will make the same mistake as before.

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD did have the best CPUs in the past, and they still didn't get the server market. A monopoly can easily keep superior products off the market.

They got all they could get from being capacity limited. So your assumption is wrong. AMD sold every single server CPU it could produce at the time.

There are different markets within the cpu industry.... AMD is not part of the enthusiast market atm. Look at the price of the ivy bridge-e CPUs. They are more expensive than the Haswells! The 4960x almost never dropped below 1k.

Now what does that look like? That's someone taking the piss, because they have no competition.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4960X+@+3.60GHz&id=2026

About pricing, you seem to think we get a lot more for cheaper. But that's not how it works out. If AMD gets the performance crown, you will be paying 1000$+ for AMD CPUs.

If AMD CPUs matches a 5820K for example, they will also charge 5820K prices.

Its not some kind of pro bono company. The 9590 was an example that AMD is not only willing but will also try to take as much as they can, value or not.

there wont be an "enthusiast" price war if that's what you hope. They both use server parts.

 

[ShintaiDK]

could have upped the price, then.

They did. It was a time where you paid out the nose for performance CPUs.

Also why when Core 2 hit, prices dropped like a stone. 360$ now gave you what took 600-800$ before.

 

[Dribble]

They did. It was a time where you paid out the nose for performance CPUs.

Also why when Core 2 hit, prices dropped like a stone. 360$ now gave you what took 600-800$ before.

If anything it has been Intel forcing down prices. Last time AMD were in front even their basic dual core A64 X2 was really expensive, and the high end athlons were silly expensive - amazing for gaming but out of my price range. It's why I only owned a pentium 4 C - the 2.4C o/c to 3.2 and was at the time the best value for decent performance (nothing like as fast as the athlons however in games).

Intel then brought out the E6600 which destroyed everything, o/c like a champ (2.4 to 3.2) and was priced like a pentium 4. That killed AMD. Since then Intel has maintained that pricing - the Q6600, and then the i5 K processors have all stayed in that same price range and been everything your average gamer could want.

The effect of AMD being so weak has not been on pricing, but on how fast performance increases. Intel have been able to ignore us gaming desktop users for years giving us minimal performance gains while lowering power and wasting more die space on an integrated gpu we don't need. Hence the reason I'm still on sandy bridge. If AMD had been pumping out faster desktop cpu's then you can bet Intel would have responded.

 

[NTMBK]

If anything it has been Intel forcing down prices.

They did back when they needed to gain ground from AMD and rebuild their reputation. Now they have free reign, they're putting out $1500 enthusiast chips.

Competition is what gave us the kick-ass Conroe pricing, and I'd love to see it happen again

 

[ShintaiDK]

They did back when they needed to gain ground from AMD and rebuild their reputation. Now they have free reign, they're putting out $1500 enthusiast chips.

Competition is what gave us the kick-ass Conroe pricing, and I'd love to see it happen again

Would it not be good to see if the rumour becomes true first?