Arachnotronic
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2006
- 11,715
- 2,012
- 126
Because they aren't launching?
Not even Polaris 11? If true, that's kind of a bummer.
Because they aren't launching?
Not even Polaris 11? If true, that's kind of a bummer.
AMD has announced a showcase of its "latest technology" at Computex Taipei 2016. The company says the event will feature the launch of its 7th-generation (Bristol Ridge) APUs, "Polaris updates, and more."
Not even Polaris 11? If true, that's kind of a bummer.
That's a shame.
How about something Zen related?
![]()
More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4k8lha/new_q2_amd_investor_presentation_includes_vague/
Doesn't say much without info about the exact Orochi SKU in this comparison.
Y-axis isn't labeled either.
it's 4 and 2, obviously, and 4 is way better than 2. you might say, it's better by 2. which, unless you subscribe to common core, is 2 better!
i think it'd be materially misleading if it's not double at *something*
it's 4 and 2, obviously, and 4 is way better than 2. you might say, it's better by 2. which, unless you subscribe to common core, is 2 better!
i think it'd be materially misleading if it's not double at *something*
Significant performance leap expected
Assuming the y-axis starts at zero. But since it's unlabled it could be 10.2 and 10.4.
Assuming the y-axis starts at zero. But since it's unlabled it could be 10.2 and 10.4.
Can't be materially misleading if it's not labeled, but for now I assume 2x multithreaded performance.
Much, much better than what AMD is currently selling into the market.
i don't think it's a safe assumption to make just from one being labelled and the other not. esp. considering that one has 5 lines and the other has 6.Since the other graph on the same page is labeled that way I think it's pretty safe to assume that it also starts at 0. I don't see why else they'd label one and not the other. I refuse to believe that they think they'd get away with trying to pull some nonsense arbitrary comparison this way.
Assuming the y-axis starts at zero. But since it's unlabled it could be 10.2 and 10.4.
Since the other graph on the same page is labeled that way I think it's pretty safe to assume that it also starts at 0. I don't see why else they'd label one and not the other. I refuse to believe that they think they'd get away with trying to pull some nonsense arbitrary comparison this way.
Assuming this is compared to an FX-8150 (CB R15 ~550), the score for Zen is roughly 1100. This is comparable to an Haswell-E based sixcore i7-5820K. But considering Zen has a 2 core advantage it would possibly mean that there is still quite a big gap in Singlethread performance to Intel.
Nope, they very clearly took the effort to label the Carrizo slide but intentionally signaled a separation between the two and did not label the second.
Well. Even if cb is a good measure of performance doing it at eg. 95w instead of 140w should make for a difference.Assuming this is compared to an FX-8150 (CB R15 ~550), the score for Zen is roughly 1100. This is comparable to an Haswell-E based sixcore i7-5820K. But considering Zen has a 2 core advantage it would possibly mean that there is still quite a big gap in Singlethread performance to Intel.
Or they felt that one label was sufficient for both graphs.
I have already said it, but this is pretty much what I am expecting: 8 core Zen to compete with 6 core intel HEDT, maybe slightly better in highly threaded workloads, and trailing somewhat in single or lightly threaded. So then it comes down to overclocking and price.
Lets just hope BW-E gives some improvement over HW-E. My feeling is it will be a crap over-clocker and given the small ipc gain might not be faster than HW-E at all, and could even be a slight regression.