The new Horizon event is an official AMD event, in which was clearly stated 3.4GHz+ BASE clock. Turbo was not disclosed.
You don't think they would have run it higher if it could? Think about it.
The new Horizon event is an official AMD event, in which was clearly stated 3.4GHz+ BASE clock. Turbo was not disclosed.
You don't think they would have run it higher if it could? Think about it.
It's ramping production. It will obviously be a higher bin. These samples come from small batches with very little opportunity to harvest higher clocks parts. Also there are things like steppings and process tweaks that can increase clocks.You don't think they would have run it higher if it could? Think about it.
Amazingly the guy that did the Zen test at CanardPC (and who once merged his site wich CanardPC) is the very one that got an Athlon 64 sample (at 1.4GHz) 8 months before the CPU was launched, so history seems to repeat itself..
http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=67
First AMD RYZEN Review Leaked – Aggregate Performance 46% Faster Than FX-8370 with 93 Watt Power Consumption
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-review-leaked/
http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque/
You don't think they would have run it higher if it could? Think about it.
That's pretty bold for WCCFTech to indirectly call Lisa Su a liar... She CLEARLY said AT LEAST 3.4Ghz Base (if not more at launch). Here they are claiming there isn't time to get clocks higher than that review/engineering sample (which was 3.15Ghz).
That chip may have had other issues making it underperform, because otherwise it should be beating other chips that are similarly clocked. Its generally accepted Athlon 64 outperformed predecessors by 30% per clock.
I think it was in the article (review) from the magazine they are talking about.
They didn't do the review.
This shows that the review was probably conducted before the Ryzen event and is probably an engineering sample sent out to press to test under NDA. While it is possible (read: improbable) that the final product will have higher clocks, at this point it is starting to look very unlikely since AMD would have made sure that any outdated engineering samples were replaced before the reviews went live. Without any further ado, let’s dig into the review:
Nobody in the press has an official Ryzen sample from AMD, ES or final. The Canard Ryzen sample probably came from a motherboard company.
That's pretty bold for WCCFTech to indirectly call Lisa Su a liar... She CLEARLY said AT LEAST 3.4Ghz Base (if not more at launch). Here they are claiming there isn't time to get clocks higher than that review/engineering sample (which was 3.15Ghz).
It's ramping production. It will obviously be a higher bin. These samples come from small batches with very little opportunity to harvest higher clocks parts. Also there are things like steppings and process tweaks that can increase clocks.
Rev 2D
Clock 315
2M 2MB cache L2
88E 8c 8t eco
This's a business cpu 65w TDP, no HT.
It's not SR7|SR5 consumer product.
I'm sure they will do another stepping. I don't think they want to wait for it though before releasing something. I guess the question is whether this is good enough to really tempt people at say $700 if this can only do 3.4 and not much more.
It's insane how they managed to jump from faildozer to BW-E class with a new uarch and a shoestring budget. This is AMD's Conroe moment.
Competition, I'm glad you're back!
Someone in WCCFTech Comments said this in reference to the ES Code (AMD 2D3151A2M88E).
Can anyone confirm this?
I think AMD will have to price 4C/8T at USD 160 - USD 170 , 6C/12T at USD 260 - USD 270 , 8C/16T at USD 350 and 8C/16T flagship SKU at USD 450 - USD 500.
CanardPC is oldskool.
So,AMD actually managed to get close to Broadwell level IPC. That is much better than any of us thought they would get.
As a general rule of thumb, if you OC your chip 10% you should see close to that much performance improvement, maybe a percentage point less.
I guess Broadwell has higher IPC than Skylake, given that 8C/16T Broadwell-E is 13.3% faster than 4C/4C Skylake-S in the games tested (3.2-3.7 GHz vs 3.2-3.6 GHz). Fair comparison.
No, Broadwell-E (6900K) has higher clockspeed and bigger cashes than Skylake-S in this test while being just ~3% behind Skylake IPC wise (as per AT review). Games they tested are clock/IPC taxing except BF1 which can tax more cores.
I can't wait for retail top SKU reviews and Francois Piednoel reactions over twitter
Amazingly the guy that did the Zen test at CanardPC (and who once merged his site wich CanardPC) is the very one that got an Athlon 64 sample (at 1.4GHz) 8 months before the CPU was launched, so history seems to repeat itself..
Why do you think that? Base clock means what is says: minimum guaranteed clock for a SKU. I think you are just confused.
This is an 8 core 65W TDP version??!!
Lazy or incompetent developers who haven't bothered to take advantage of old instructions that have been in the market since 2011 and which drastically boost performance is a rebuttal to my point?
You obviously dont understand, Compilers have many many flags that can be set, there are always trade offs to be made. There is then the version of the compiler which can have a big impact and the COST of the compiler can also be a factor. Choose the wrong optimization and things can go horribly wrong depending on how your code operates.Just using a different compiler or two causes a huge performance increase and we're supposed to believe that it makes sense to not just use the better compiler(s)?
No it isn't, you completely missed the point, all the things that tried to just be a benchmark get gamed to hell and back ( SPEC for example). All applications are benchmarks even if they are completely crap internally. They all tell you something if you take the time to understand. Blender is telling us that Bulldozer has internally bottlenecks that other cores don't have.It's also a red herring to mention other software because Blender is what AMD chose to use as its benchmark and not all other software needs to be a benchmark or claims to be one.
This is fascinating technical talk that dodges what I'm talking about and uses the old "Bulldozer has a bad design" chestnut to get an emotional response (prompting people to forget what we were actually talking about).
The point is its not just setting a flag you have to make your code fit the model the execution units use. if you go use the 2.75 code base and compiled it with AVX,AVX2,FMA/etc you would see that. Then what does refactoring your code like that do to products that don't support that optional instruction set.What's the point here? The Stilt's builds offer much better performance on Intel and Piledriver — with current Blender code. 2.75a is a lot slower.
Blender's official builds aren't a problem on Lynnfield but it's not 2009 anymore.
Seems rational. The top-end SKU pricing you estimate here falls in line with my expectations.
Rollin down the street, smokin Ryzen, sippin on gin and juice.
I am not . . . not really. It falls in line with the Blender/Handbrake demo.
Eh depends on RAM/cache scaling. Fortunately bus speeds (or ring/mesh speeds) are fast enough that those aren't a big bottleneck anymore, but if you just jack up CPU clock without the memory/cache subsystem being able to catch up, then you do not get 100% scaling.
That's why I miss bclk/htt OC like from my Stars days. Raise the clockspeed on everything!
When you give Broadwell lots of extra l3 cache (or l4, heh heh) then yes, it will sport higher IPC in games.
Yeah what you said.
Oh goody.
Well, they ARE old school. Sometimes it pays to stay in the game.
XFR may surprise us. If my guesstimations are correct, it may fluidly downclock below the "base" clock as it approaches the thermal throttling point. So there may not be a hard-and-fast set of clockspeeds or p-states like in previous AMD products. In other words, there may not be the behavior where it will sit at base clock until it crosses some arbitrary temperature threshold beyond which it throttles to 1.7 GHz immediately or . . . whatever. It'll probably follow a curve.
There will likely be a few points on the temperature vs. power consumption curve where it will sit at 3.4 GHz, which is where they expect the CPU to sit in an average case with the stock Wraith cooler during "normal" usage.
the FACT is bulldozer has issues with large amounts of FP operations in flight
the FACT is bulldozer has issues with a large amount of FP stores in flight
the FACT is bulldozer/piledriver has to round Robbin its instruction decode between both cores
the FACT is if you vectorise something (pack 4 32 bit ops into 1 128bit op) you reduce:
the amount of instruction Decode from 4 to 1
the amount of scheduled ops from 4 to 1
the amount of stored data from 4 to 1
There is no conspiracy here if bulldozer see's a larger gain from the REFACTORING of code then other products then Bulldozer has a bottleneck in a space where no other Core does! Now given one of the Zen architects explicitly called out this issue with Bulldozer.........
if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck. ITS A BLOODY DUCK!
On the New Horizon event Zen ran steadily at 3.4GHz on a quite high load, drawing about 80W, with a quite overvolt (to be safely stable) and was a preproduction chip. What let you think that retail chip with correct voltage can't stay at 3.4GHz+ at 95W?