[Austin Statesman] AMD sees a way forward (with new Zen design)

[AtenRa]

So instead of buying a Zen in Q1 2017, just wait for Q2 2017 and buy the superior product which will likely be on a new X109 chipset...

Okay.

And then you may wait for ZEN+, then after that you could wait for CannonLake and then for ZEN++ etc etc

 

[Boze]

I sure hope Zen will be competitive. It is obvious that Zen will consume more power than the current AMD cores. I guess AMD will go for as fast as I7 or maybe just a few single digit percents lower but at a cheaper price.
I guess that is the only way for AMD to release a competitive product if it consumes about the same and performs about the same but is cheaper.

If Zen consumes more power than current AMD cores, and is just as fast as an i7 but at a cheaper price, its still not a very good deal, because you have to identify with AMD parts you're talking about.

If you're trying to compare apples to apples, Zen will have 95W and 125W parts for high-end desktops. They'll have to compete against the Core i7 7700K because that'll be what's out by the time Zen is released. I assume a 7700K part would be around 95W like the current i7 6700K.

If Zen is 125W upon release, and its going up against an i7 7700K, then Intel is still the victor, because power consumption becomes an issue. Why would I buy a Zen CPU and spend an extra $100 - $200 on power over its lifetime?

Let's suppose AMD prices it at $199.99. And the i7 7700K is priced at $370. I'm still better off buying the Intel CPU if I keep my machine on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.

Furthermore, AMD power consumption massively increases, historically, with overclocking, which I would argue most high-end CPU purchasers tend to do. Nowadays, most folks pick up a water cooler for even higher gains, which means even more power consumed.

Look no further than the FX-8350 overclocked to 4.5 - 4.8 gHz to see rampant power consumption.

Zen needs to be 95 watts, and within 5% - 8% of a Core i7 7700K at $199.99 - $249.99 to entice anyone but the AMD faithful away, or it needs to be 125 watts and exactly on par for $199.99 with good overclocking capability and reasonable power usage at high frequency. Otherwise, its dead in the water.

 

[Boze]

And then you may wait for ZEN+, then after that you could wait for CannonLake and then for ZEN++ etc etc

Okay, I tell you what, I'll put my money where my mouth is.

If Zen is a superior product to whatever Core i7 x700K part is available when Zen is released, I'll never post on AnandTech again, and I'll ask the moderators to delete my account.

You do the same.

Put this s**t in your sig and smoke it.

 

[Dave2150]

Lets say Zen turns out to be the wet dream you wish for. And AMD loves you so they give you an eight core, 16 thread CPU for $299.

Intel goes "Hmmmmm.....4770 list price is now $99." Intel just decided what Zen will compete with.

4770 will be completely unavailable by the time Zen releases.............

 

[AtenRa]

If Zen consumes more power than current AMD cores, and is just as fast as an i7 but at a cheaper price, its still not a very good deal, because you have to identify with AMD parts you're talking about.

If you're trying to compare apples to apples, Zen will have 95W and 125W parts for high-end desktops. They'll have to compete against the Core i7 7700K because that'll be what's out by the time Zen is released. I assume a 7700K part would be around 95W like the current i7 6700K.

If Zen is 125W upon release, and its going up against an i7 7700K, then Intel is still the victor, because power consumption becomes an issue. Why would I buy a Zen CPU and spend an extra $100 - $200 on power over its lifetime?

Let's suppose AMD prices it at $199.99. And the i7 7700K is priced at $370. I'm still better off buying the Intel CPU if I keep my machine on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.

Furthermore, AMD power consumption massively increases, historically, with overclocking, which I would argue most high-end CPU purchasers tend to do. Nowadays, most folks pick up a water cooler for even higher gains, which means even more power consumed.

Look no further than the FX-8350 overclocked to 4.5 - 4.8 gHz to see rampant power consumption.

Zen needs to be 95 watts, and within 5% - 8% of a Core i7 7700K at $199.99 - $249.99 to entice anyone but the AMD faithful away, or it needs to be 125 watts and exactly on par for $199.99 with good overclocking capability and reasonable power usage at high frequency. Otherwise, its dead in the water.

You keep ignoring what im saying, there is no competing between 6C 12T ZEN CPU against an Intel 4C 8T APU like the Core i7 7700K you are talking about.

edit:

It is like saying the Core i7 5820K at 130W TDP should be priced lower than the Core i7 6700K.

 

[Dresdenboy]

If Zen is a superior product to whatever Core i7 x700K part is available when Zen is released, I'll never post on AnandTech again, and I'll ask the moderators to delete my account.

Did you leave out the exact definition of "superior" on purpose?

 

[William Gaatjes]

If Zen consumes more power than current AMD cores, and is just as fast as an i7 but at a cheaper price, its still not a very good deal, because you have to identify with AMD parts you're talking about.

If you're trying to compare apples to apples, Zen will have 95W and 125W parts for high-end desktops. They'll have to compete against the Core i7 7700K because that'll be what's out by the time Zen is released. I assume a 7700K part would be around 95W like the current i7 6700K.

If Zen is 125W upon release, and its going up against an i7 7700K, then Intel is still the victor, because power consumption becomes an issue. Why would I buy a Zen CPU and spend an extra $100 - $200 on power over its lifetime?

Let's suppose AMD prices it at $199.99. And the i7 7700K is priced at $370. I'm still better off buying the Intel CPU if I keep my machine on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.

Furthermore, AMD power consumption massively increases, historically, with overclocking, which I would argue most high-end CPU purchasers tend to do. Nowadays, most folks pick up a water cooler for even higher gains, which means even more power consumed.

Look no further than the FX-8350 overclocked to 4.5 - 4.8 gHz to see rampant power consumption.

Zen needs to be 95 watts, and within 5% - 8% of a Core i7 7700K at $199.99 - $249.99 to entice anyone but the AMD faithful away, or it needs to be 125 watts and exactly on par for $199.99 with good overclocking capability and reasonable power usage at high frequency. Otherwise, its dead in the water.

I was thinking of a 65 watt to 95 watt range. Doable without an igpu. I have a 65Watt A10-6700 and was hoping for a similar power envelope and price .
You sure do your best to convince me that AMD should die off. No need to. If Zen will do what i hope, i will buy another AMD CPU.

 

[Fjodor2001]

That was the 2000 Intel, but look at the 2013 Intel, that priced Bay Trail low enough to wipe out AMD cat line from the market.

Sure, but those CPUs are in kind of a niche market. I wonder if Intel would do the same for it's bread and butter high revenue desktop and server CPUs, where they already are firmly established too.

 

[mrmt]

Sure, but those CPUs are in kind of a niche market. I wonder if Intel would do the same for it's bread and butter high revenue desktop and server CPUs, where they already are firmly established too.

Niche? You haven't been reading market reports in a while. Atom is bigger than AMD was three years ago.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Niche? You haven't been reading market reports in a while. Atom is bigger than AMD was three years ago.

Compared to the Intel desktop and server segments it's still a niche market revenue-wise.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You keep ignoring what im saying, there is no competing between 6C 12T ZEN CPU against an Intel 4C 8T APU like the Core i7 7700K you are talking about.

edit:

It is like saying the Core i7 5820K at 130W TDP should be priced lower than the Core i7 6700K.

Since there is no Zen yet, and we have no idea of its *real* performance, we dont really know what it will compete against.

 

[Vortex6700]

Sure, but those CPUs are in kind of a niche market. I wonder if Intel would do the same for it's bread and butter high revenue desktop and server CPUs, where they already are firmly established too.

Last time AMD beat intel in tech, intel went Carnegie and bought the distributors.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Its quite clear. There is 16 lanes for graphics, nothing more. SO yes, it specifies exactly how many electric x16 slots.

Am I interpreting it wrong then? I thought it was saying that it had at most 16 lanes to dedicate to any given GPU, not that it had a grand total of 16 lanes for . . . anything.

As opposed to older platforms that would only support, say, 8x slots or 4x slots.

 

[mrmt]

Compared to the Intel desktop and server segments it's still a niche market revenue-wise.

Is it? What's the relative share today and how much growth Atom needs to have to not be considered niche?

More important, what's the growth rate for Atom vs Core desktop?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Am I interpreting it wrong then? I thought it was saying that it had at most 16 lanes to dedicate to any given GPU, not that it had a grand total of 16 lanes for . . . anything.

As opposed to older platforms that would only support, say, 8x slots or 4x slots.

When you look on the rest and the diagram. It leaves nothing for multiple x16. Just a single one. I am sure you can split it into 2 x8 slots tho.

It also fits the mainstream socket design, 1 x16 for discrete graphics. At least some, if not all, Bristol Ridge models will have x8 only. Its all about cost and need.

 

[Boze]

Did you leave out the exact definition of "superior" on purpose?

Well, as power users, I mean higher Cinebench performance, faster encoding, higher FPS in games, and less time to complete tasks in Adobe products, and same power consumption as a comparable Intel processor. I even gave AtenHa two more cores and he won't accept the bet.

Tells me all I need to know about his faith in Zen.

Fine by me though, I'll be using a Skylake-E that crushes any Zen SKU.

 

[Boze]

Since there is no Zen yet, and we have no idea of its *real* performance, we dont really know what it will compete against.

Instead of competing against 5 year old CPUs, it'll be competitive against 2 year old CPUs, which will still be a win for AMD I guess.

 

[MrTeal]

If Zen consumes more power than current AMD cores, and is just as fast as an i7 but at a cheaper price, its still not a very good deal, because you have to identify with AMD parts you're talking about.

If you're trying to compare apples to apples, Zen will have 95W and 125W parts for high-end desktops. They'll have to compete against the Core i7 7700K because that'll be what's out by the time Zen is released. I assume a 7700K part would be around 95W like the current i7 6700K.

If Zen is 125W upon release, and its going up against an i7 7700K, then Intel is still the victor, because power consumption becomes an issue. Why would I buy a Zen CPU and spend an extra $100 - $200 on power over its lifetime?

Let's suppose AMD prices it at $199.99. And the i7 7700K is priced at $370. I'm still better off buying the Intel CPU if I keep my machine on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.

Furthermore, AMD power consumption massively increases, historically, with overclocking, which I would argue most high-end CPU purchasers tend to do. Nowadays, most folks pick up a water cooler for even higher gains, which means even more power consumed.

Look no further than the FX-8350 overclocked to 4.5 - 4.8 gHz to see rampant power consumption.

Zen needs to be 95 watts, and within 5% - 8% of a Core i7 7700K at $199.99 - $249.99 to entice anyone but the AMD faithful away, or it needs to be 125 watts and exactly on par for $199.99 with good overclocking capability and reasonable power usage at high frequency. Otherwise, its dead in the water.

How on Earth are you doing that math? The only way what would work is if you were running 25W over the Intel system 24/7 for the whole life of the product. While there's definitely people and businesses who might run at full load continuously, that's definitely not the typical person's usage pattern.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Well, as power users, I mean higher Cinebench performance, faster encoding, higher FPS in games, and less time to complete tasks in Adobe products, and same power consumption as a comparable Intel processor. I even gave AtenHa two more cores and he won't accept the bet.

Tells me all I need to know about his faith in Zen.

Fine by me though, I'll be using a Skylake-E that crushes any Zen SKU.

Interesting that you mention Cinebench. Would Cinebench R10 performance matter to you?

 

[Boze]

Interesting that you mention Cinebench. Would Cinebench R10 performance matter to you?

Not to me personally, I just threw it out there for the hell of it, because I know its been used in a lot of AnandTech benchmarks.

Honestly though, pick whatever you want, it won't matter. Intel's lead is so vast that God himself would have to come down from Heaven and design Zen for it to be competitive against top-of-the-line Kaby Lake / Cannonlake processors.

And don't even get me started on Skylake-E because that's what I'll be purchasing right around the time Zen is released.

I fully expect a Q2/Q3 2017 Zen launch, but maybe AMD will surprise us all and it'll come out in Q3/Q4 2016, in which case it'll be competing against an i7 6970K at best, and an i7 7700K at worst.

Best of luck to AMD on both fronts. It'd be nice to see ultra-high end processors go down from $560 / $1050 to $400 - $700 range with super cherry picked Zen parts, but while I'm wishing for that, maybe my $267,000,000 Powerball ticket will come up a winner too.

 

[tential]

Haha Boze, I understand how you feel. I'm looking at HEDT as well, and I just don't see it being probably that Zen competes. If it does? Great, I'll get it. But the performance gap is so vast that I just don't see it being possible.

I'll of course look at Zen's performance vs what Intel has out, but if Zen is late, or if I want something and Zen isn't out, there is no way I will WAIT for Zen. AMD is not a company I will "wait" for anymore. Too many delays and disappointments waiting for AMD releases for me to ever wait for them again.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The later Zen is delayed, the more precarious its release becomes.

I suspect this will become clearer after AMD reports its Q3 results.

 

[tenks]

Zen will compete with whatever Intel wants it to compete with.

Winnnnnnnner!


Who is anyone kidding. AMD doesn't get to choose what it's CPU's compete with it. Intel does. If an AMD sku beats an Intel Sku at a price point, Intel will just drop the price of a higher performing sku, and create a newer one at the top end. Unless AMD's best beats Intel's best, Intel will always control this.'


Next...Broadwell-E is 2016 March product release, that is Q1 2016 based on the most recent news and info. Purely platform (Skylake-EP) is projected for 2h'17 on most recent Intel roadmaps. So yes I expect Skylake-E in 2H'17 as well, or sooner because it will be using an already developed PCH in kabylake's. So yes, I expect SKY-E 12-18 months after broadwell-E in 2H'17.

Pretty simple.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Furthermore, AMD power consumption massively increases, historically, with overclocking, which I would argue most high-end CPU purchasers tend to do. Nowadays, most folks pick up a water cooler for even higher gains, which means even more power consumed.

Look no further than the FX-8350 overclocked to 4.5 - 4.8 gHz to see rampant power consumption.

LOL. Overclocked Nehalem, anyone?

And we don't even know the voltage/freq/temp scaling of the new GF 14nm process, do we? I think that it would be unwise to make assumptions at this point.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not to me personally, I just threw it out there for the hell of it, because I know its been used in a lot of AnandTech benchmarks.

Okay. So AMD claims that Zen will have a 40% increase in IPC over Excavator. It is generally assumed by pessimists that the 40% number refers primarily to FPU-heavy workloads (Cinebench R10 being an example) where Construction cores are considered to be weak. The general idea is that Zen will have more execution resources per core versus BD/PD/SR/XV's modules.

If somebody could show you Cinebench R10 numbers for Carrizo (no throttling, no turbo, just steady clocks), and then we multiplied those numbers by 1.4, would you accept that as a probable performance reference point for Zen?