Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Dresdenboy, Mar 1, 2016.
Not even Polaris 11? If true, that's kind of a bummer.
That's a shame.
What's the drama here? I read "after Computex" and "potentially at E3" and the like. And as there is nothing to be put against the 1080 yet, is there a hurry?
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 would be good news to get some solid updates as to where Zen stands in June 2016. I would hope there is enough silicon out there with testers to give us a peek at what might be in store.
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*
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.
Actually could be:
- 40% ST perf. Improvement. SMT, better cache, die shrink and new instructions will boost them.
- Up to 2X MT perf. Improvement if we compare the Octacores... since now it will be 8 threads vs 16. In fact expecting a 70% MT improvement
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.
Assuming the y-axis starts at zero. But since it's unlabled it could be 10.2 and 10.4.
Full investor http://phx.corporate-ir.net/Externa...WxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1&cb=635992964179233292 PDF linked on that page...
So they don't have Zen's performance nailed down yet?
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.
and i think it would be materially misleading not to be. then again, it's been a long time since i've taken securities law.
source? that's not my understanding of 10b-5. and, keep in mind, i think it means it's double at *something* performance oriented, but i don't know what that is.
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.
Yes, I was going to say that. One would assume that it starts at 0 like the other graph, but there is no way to be sure.
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.
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.
Or they felt that one label was sufficient for both graphs.
Well. Even if cb is a good measure of performance doing it at eg. 95w instead of 140w should make for a difference.
Actually i find anything above 100w in a desktop a little cheasy for 2016. The new i5 quad cores easily keep 45w tdp.
Besides with dx12 comming its a question if the ipc level is not fine as it is.
If zen is good i have no doubt skylake 8c will hit well before half a year and with low tdp variant available. If we look at the small die sizes intel have there is plenty opportunity. The fix cost is sunk. Variable cost is low. What matters is keeping share and get revenue for future investments. Same goes for amd/gf.
Intel big cores are fast elegant and lean. Zen is perhaps a bit slower but more cost effecttive. It could be a fantastic fight. No weak bd or p4 or what ever slow arch amd had in the 90ties. No.
I think we as consumers are in for the best year ever.
Negative, the lines in the first don't match up with the second and they make sure to stick a dotted line in between the two graphs. This is a very intentional omission and if you bought AMD stock on the expectation that this was the case, they would tell you "no, we never said that, you just inferred it."
Anyway, so the only "statements" that AMD made to investors are the following:
1. "Coming to high performance desktops"
2. "Significant performance leap expected"
Accompanying this is a clearly separated, y-axis unlabeled chart that seems to imply that Summit Ridge is 2x Orochi but is never explicitly stated .
As long as statements (1) and (2) are not false: meaning that Zen is in fact at the time that the statement was made "coming to high performance desktops" and as long as AMD internally expects, at the time that the statement was issued to investors, a "significant performance leap" then they are legally free and clear.
And of course they cover their behinds further with the disclaimer slide right there at the end
Seems reasonable to me.
Intel gave BDW-E samples to reviewers a while ago and the embargo should lift soon.