WCCFAMD Zen Architecture Could Feature in APUs in 2016, ASUS a Key Player

[csbin]

AMD’s Zen Architecture is somewhat of an enigma currently since information about it is very limited. What we do know for sure is that it is a next generation, high performance, x86 architecture from AMD. However, more information has appeared on the leak scene that Asustek is one of the major hands behind this architecture and will get preferential treatment when the CPUs do appear. http://wccftech.com/samsung-14nm-process-candidate-amd-zen-architecture/amd-zen-image-new/


AMD’s partnership with Asustek is growing stronger and if the the rumor mill is correct than Zen will be used in the AMD’s APUs in 2016. AMD will also allegedly give discounts to Asustek for its CPUs. AMD currently has about 30% share in the desktop market and it will use this as an opportunity to take it above 30% (Source: Digitimes). It would however, be interesting to see what AMD’s other AIBs have to say about this. If Asustek’s influence with AMD grows, by default, it would put a damper with the other players such as MSI, Biostar etc. There have been rumblings that Zen might be fabricated on the Samsung 14nm node, but I don’t know how authentic said rumblings were, so I will leave that up to our readers.

We first heard confirmation about Zen at the Deustche Bank 2014 Technology Conference, where Rory Red confirmed that the core was in fact an x86 variant and not an ARM one. Zen, is probably going to be the successor to fill the void left by Bulldozer, which was somewhat of a disappointment. Various reasons explaining away the problem exist; ranging from bad architecture design to the choice of CMT over SMT to harsh accusations of lack of R&D. Whatever the case actually is, Intel has had a free run for far too long, and if there is one thing that is bad for the consumers, it is a monopoly. AMD’s Next Generation Zen architecture is x86 sibling of K12 and vows to give AMD its say back in the compute sector.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-architecture-asus/#ixzz3GAZrxPB7

 

[NostaSeronx]

Was stolen from;
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141014PD203.html

 

[Burpo]

Yay! ()

 

[Soulkeeper]

"AMD currently has about 30% share in the desktop market."
Does anyone here believe this ?

 

[Roland00Address]

I hope AMD turns it around, when I look at this I feel so sad.

Cinebench 11.5 Scores, Single and Multithread. Scores from TH 2010 CPU bench, TH 2013 CPU Bench and Ananadtech Bench

AMD models avaliable at 4/23/09 when AM3 Release aka the ddr3 models, Prices are from anandtech review
AMD Brand Model Cores CB ST CB MT Price
125w PII 955 4 0.97 3.82 $245
125w PII 945 4 0.91 3.56 $225

Intel
130w i7 920 4/8 1 4.79 $284
95w Q9650 4 0.93 3.68 $316
95w Q9550 4 0.88 3.48 $266
95w Q8300 4 0.76 2.99 $183

Today's Chips (Newegg Prices, TH 2013 and Anandtech Bench)

AMD
100w A10-6800k 2/4 1.13 3.58 $139.99
95w A10-7850k 2/4 1.03 3.6 $179.99
220w FX 9590 4/8 1.21 7.84 $249.99

Intel
54w i3 4360 2/4 1.7 4.04 $129.99
84w i5 4430 4/4 1.44 5.21 $189.99
88w i5 4690k 4/4 1.7 6.71 $239.99
88w i7 4790k 4/8 2.05 9.66 $339.99

Prices are from's anandtech's review of the 955 and today's prices are from newegg.

Cinebench is not the be all end all benchmark but it is simple to use and illustrates a general pattern.

So in 5 years we seen a 25% ST performance increase from AMD but that is with an outrageous tdp sku. The most modern sku (a10-7850k) we only see a 6% increase. In multithread we actually see a decrease from 3.82 to 3.6. Now sure we got lower tdp, and better graphics instead of motherboard graphics but damn no improve in 5.5 years and the AM2+ was showing similar numbers as the AM3 and came out 6 years ago.

Intel by contrast has seen a 105% ST performance increase, 102% MT performance increase. Plus lower tdp, and its graphics on the 4790k is within 55% to 85% the speed of the best a10 the 7850k

Now core m is looking to be 2.48 in Multithread in the IDF reference platform (68% the performance in a 5w sku). Mullins and other jaguar based parts are not so bad the 25w 5350 is 0.54 ST and 2.04 MT but this is the worst version of jaguar. A10-6700t (mullins) gets 0.54 ST and 1.47 MT and this is on a manufacturing process that is effectively 2 nodes behind intel (1 now, 2 in a month). AMD needs everything, good fabs, money, engineers and intel willing to lose market share by not undercutting AMD because they have the fab capacity. I miss my old AMD.

"AMD currently has about 30% share in the desktop market."
Does anyone here believe this ?

Not really, AMD has been below 18% for a while now. Last time I heard they were hovering between 15% and 16%

 

[swilli89]

Exciting! Man I'd love to see a competitive AMD platform. This is good news if true

 

[SPBHM]

keep in mind that Core 2 Quad was old news when AMD released the Phenom II, yes PII was good value, a good product, but... they were competing with a level of performance Intel achieved 2-3 years earlier, and even Nehalem was released before PII...

Phenom (1) release was probably worse than Bulldozer, so it's been a long time since AMD really delivered, maybe 2005, still if they can look as competitive as they did in 2009 it would already be quite nice... but I have big doubts, they lost their fabs and a lot of people, they are loosing money... hard to see them being able to compete with Intel for CPU performance...

"APUs" need a faster CPU and GPU/memory than they have now, and more aggressive pricing (7850K launch price was a joke considering how it performed) to really be a big thing I think.

 

[Lepton87]

keep in mind that Core 2 Quad was old news when AMD released the Phenom II, yes PII was good value, a good product, but... they were competing with a level of performance Intel achieved 2-3 years earlier, and even Nehalem was released before PII...

Phenom (1) release was probably worse than Bulldozer, so it's been a long time since AMD really delivered, maybe 2005, still if they can look as competitive as they did in 2009 it would already be quite nice... but I have big doubts, they lost their fabs and a lot of people, they are loosing money... hard to see them being able to compete with Intel for CPU performance...

"APUs" need a faster CPU and GPU/memory than they have now, and more aggressive pricing (7850K launch price was a joke considering how it performed) to really be a big thing I think.

You are only talking about CPUs right? Because if you're talking about the whole of AMD you are sinfully wrong. Many GPU releases were very solid and unmatched by NV for long periods of time, even now AMD is a better top end solution thanks to its better M-GPU implementation no to mention superior 4K gaming experience.

 

[inf64]

Zen will have a new x86 core, latest GCN based iGPU and stacked memory on die. The last 2 will solve the memory BW issues and AMD will most likely have the fastest iGPU when Zen launches. The x86 cores are a bit of a mystery and AMD seems to be targeting higher-end with this core also ( besides the "mainstream APU" segment) and it looks like there is a chance FX line will continue with the new core. If they can get IB/Haswell-like performance in the era of Skylake, albeit with worse perf./watt due to process node differences, I think they would do OK in desktop segment.

 

[DrMrLordX]

"AMD currently has about 30% share in the desktop market."
Does anyone here believe this ?

Not I, said the zombie.

Not really, AMD has been below 18% for a while now. Last time I heard they were hovering between 15% and 16%

That was my impression. I know things aren't as bad for them on the desktop as they are in the server sector, where they have maybe a 4% market share, but still, 30%? No way.

 

[Abwx]

"AMD currently has about 30% share in the desktop market."
Does anyone here believe this ?

This is possible because the DT market account for only 40% or so of the PC market, so a 30% share would amount to 12% of the total market share and we know that they have not a good position in the remaining 60% that are mobile/notebooks.

 

[PG]

I hope AMD turns it around, when I look at this I feel so sad.

There are some positives there, but it partially depends on what you compare and how you look at things.
I look more at the mainstream offerings. For example, compare the Phenom II 945 to the A10-7850K. The Kaveri is cheaper, rated tdp dropped from 125W to 95W, single threaded performance improved slightly, multithreaded is the same, and it has an integrated gpu so you can play most modern games without needing an extra video card. That looks pretty good to me.

 

[ShintaiDK]

There are some positives there, but it partially depends on what you compare and how you look at things.
I look more at the mainstream offerings. For example, compare the Phenom II 945 to the A10-7850K. The Kaveri is cheaper, rated tdp dropped from 125W to 95W, single threaded performance improved slightly, multithreaded is the same, and it has an integrated gpu so you can play most modern games without needing an extra video card. That looks pretty good to me.

The 945 is 95W too. And it was introduced at 165$. The 7850K at 173$. And thats roughly 4 years between the 2 and 2½ nodes.

 

[Abwx]

The 945 is 95W too. And it was introduced at 165$. The 7850K at 173$. And thats roughly 4 years between the 2 and 2½ nodes.

Just that the 7850K is NOT an actual 95W chip, the 95W moniker is due to the K segmentation, otherwise this chip typical TDP is 67W, indeed at stock settings and under Prime 95 its comsumption is 67W, does this qualify as a 95W chip knowing how much P95 could overload all CPUs .?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Just that the 7850K is NOT an actual 95W chip, the 95W moniker is due to the K segmentation, otherwise this chip typical TDP is 67W, indeed at stock settings and under Prime 95 its comsumption is 67W, does this qualify as a 95W chip knowing how much P95 could overload all CPUs .?

And in that case my i5 4670 is 50W TDP right? :sneaky:

 

[Abwx]

And in that case my i5 4670 is 50W TDP right? :sneaky:

That s about it assuming that there s no increased comsumption when the GPU is used but generaly Prime 95 eat as much as a fully loaded CPU + GPU, that said i find odd that this site has lower P95 comsumption for the 4670K than what hardware.fr got when using Fritz with this chip, at 55W, under prime 95 they got 64W at stock settings and their measurement protocol is much more precise than Hardwarecanuck s...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/897-12/temperatures-overclocking-undervolting.html

 

[BSim500]

Just that the 7850K is NOT an actual 95W chip, the 95W moniker is due to the K segmentation, otherwise this chip typical TDP is 67W

i find odd that this site has lower P95 comsumption for the 4670K than what hardware.fr got when using Fritz with this chip, at 55W, under prime 95 they got 64W

All CPU's are binned at different voltages due to varying quality of silicone (ie the "silicone lottery"). Eg, my "77w" i5-3570 draws barely 45w load @ 3.4GHz under Prime @ 0.832v, and barely 55w even when overclocked to 4.0GHz @ 0.996v. That's because it's a "good" chip that runs at a lower voltage. Other i5-3570's are higher. The 7850K (and all AMD CPU's) are absolutely no different - you'll find some reviews at 67w, whilst others will be at 82w and higher. It depends entirely on the binning, and you can't just cherry pick the lowest wattage review you can find and declare all 7850K's to be exactly like that to the nearest watt (or do so for any CPU from either brand).

Anyway, the biggest problem with the 7850K isn't heat, it's performance & price - it runs slower than an i3 (even for multi-tasking) yet is virtually the same price as an i5. Knock $30-50 off the price and it'll finally make sense...

 

[AtenRa]

The 945 is 95W too.

PII 945 was a CPU, A10-7850K is an APU and 95W TDP is for both CPU + iGPU.

And it was introduced at 165$.The 7850K at 173$. And thats roughly 4 years between the 2 and 2½ nodes.

You would also had to add a iGPU (Motherboard) or a dGPU with the PII, and one more thing.
AMD APUs replaced AMD Athlons II, not Phenoms. FX SKUs replaced all Phenom II SKUs.

So today for $180 you get the FX8350. If you want to stay at 95W TDP for $150 you get the FX8320E.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/88?vs=697

Product Ratings & Comparisons
Phenom II 955 3.2GHz 125W TDP vs FX8350 4.0GHz 125W TDP.

Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
Phenom II 955 = 3675
FX8350 = 4338

Cinebench R10 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
Phenom II 955 = 13242
FX 8350 = 22674

Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artists Speed Test
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 22
FX8350 = 13.3

DivX 6.8.5 Encode (Xmpeg 5.0.3)
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 44
FX 8350 = 31.4

x264 HD Encode Test - 1st pass - x264 0.59.819
Frames Per Second - Higher is Better
Phenom II 955 = 74
FX 8350 = 90.4

x264 HD Encode Test - 2nd pass - x264 0.59.819
Frames Per Second - Higher is Better
Phenom II 955 = 19
FX 8350 = 44

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 30
FX 8350 = 25

POV-Ray 3.7 beta 23 - SMP Benchmark
CPU Score in PPS - Higher is Better
Phenom II 955 = 2542
FX 8350 = 5008

Par2 - Multi-Threaded par2cmdline 0.4
Time to Recover 57.2MB from 707.5MB Archive in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 36
FX 8350 = 16.1

Blender 2.48a Character Render
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 72
FX 8350 = 44.6

Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1 - Monte Carlo Simulation
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 25
FX 8350 = 12.6

Sorenson Squeeze Pro 5 - Flash Video Creation
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 143
FX 8350 = 77.4

WinRAR 3.8 Compression - 300MB Archive
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
Phenom II 955 = 112
FX 8350 = 74.9

 

[Abwx]

All CPU's are binned at different voltages due to varying quality of silicone (ie the "silicone lottery"). Eg, my "77w" i5-3570 draws barely 45w load @ 3.4GHz under Prime @ 0.832v, and barely 55w even when overclocked to 4.0GHz @ 0.996v. That's because it's a "good" chip that runs at a lower voltage. Other i5-3570's are higher. The 7850K (and all AMD CPU's) are absolutely no different - you'll find some reviews at 67w, whilst others will be at 82w and higher. It depends entirely on the binning, and you can't just cherry pick the lowest wattage review you can find and declare all 7850K's to be exactly like that to the nearest watt (or do so for any CPU from either brand).

Anyway, the biggest problem with the 7850K isn't heat, it's performance & price - it runs slower than an i3 (even for multi-tasking) yet is virtually the same price as an i5. Knock $30-50 off the price and it'll finally make sense...

The cherry picking is to use Xbitlab, or rather Xtroll labs, as a reference, and still their TDP under CPU usage is 64W when you have accounted for losses, on the other hand you re talking of undervolted Intel CPUs, for the record Hardware.fr bought two 7850k at launch and they used the lower grade one for their power measurements, so much for the cherry picking branding, yes, it was cherry picked such that it use as exemple a not well binned chip...

When undervolted their average 7850k use 50W at stock frequency under Prime 95, as for your knocked off price give us your estimation of how much the i3 should be knocked off considering it s much inferior GPU, i guess that you didnt account for all performances numbers since you sticked to CPU perfs, no wonder since pointing thoses would show the i3 as a not so good product and indeed much overpriced.

 

[AtenRa]

the biggest problem with the 7850K isn't heat, it's performance & price - it runs slower than an i3 (even for multi-tasking) yet is virtually the same price as an i5. Knock $30-50 off the price and it'll finally make sense...

Core i3 3220 is faster than Core i3 4130 and that is even faster than Core i3 4330 in Multi-Tasking ??? really ??? And playing a HD movie is using the iGPU not the CPU, what the hell ???

 

[Abwx]

Core i3 3220 is faster than Core i3 4130 and that is even faster than Core i3 4330 in Multi-Tasking ??? really ??? And playing a HD movie is using the iGPU not the CPU, what the hell ???

Lol, did you notice that Bitech doesnt publish IGP gaming scores.??.

It s not by chance, it s to not display the poor IGP perfs of the Intel parts.

As if one was to buy a high end card with this CPU, no doubt that it s a trustfull site, not a cherry picked one to any extent...

 

[III-V]

Was stolen from;
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141014PD203.html

That's wccftech for ya.

 

[BSim500]

The cherry picking is to use Xbitlab, or rather Xtroll labs, as a reference

Here another one with 83w delta consumption (load-idle) which itself is lower than actual consumption. Let me guess it'll now be labelled "guru3dtroll" by Abwx for not agreeing with him that absolutely every 7850K everywhere uses exactly 67.000w. Give it a rest kid...

as for your knocked off price give us your estimation of how much the i3 should be knocked off considering it s much inferior GPU

Even a 7770 beats that and I've seem them go for as little as $30-40. Personally, if I were a poverty stricken gamer building a budget PC, I'd buy an Haswell i3 / FX6300 + $40-$50 7790 on Ebay and enjoy up to +150% higher FPS for the same money. The biggest competitor to AMD APU's isn't Intel - it's 77xx series low-end AMD GFX cards that can be picked up for a song. Sorry but the 7850K IS overpriced by every metric.

Core i3 3220 is faster than Core i3 4130 and that is even faster than Core i3 4330 in Multi-Tasking ??? really ??? And playing a HD movie is using the iGPU not the CPU, what the hell ???

Plenty of other sites. Here's one from Abwx's favorite site:-
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html

...and a few more...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/10
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2014/01/30/amd-a10-7850k-and-a10-7700k-kaveri-review/3
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,review-32867-12.html

"They're all wrong I tell you!"

Edit : If you're REALLY broke, even a $69 Pentium G3258 + $79 7750 would still outperform a 7850K for $30 less...

 

[PG]

The 945 is 95W too. And it was introduced at 165$. The 7850K at 173$. And thats roughly 4 years between the 2 and 2½ nodes.

Not correct. There are two versions of the 945.
The first was the C2 stepping, it was 125W, and it was $225.
The later C3 stepping was the reduced 95W at $165.


http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom II X4 945 - HDX945FBK4DGI (HDX945FBGIBOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom II X4 945 - HDX945WFK4DGM (HDX945WFGMBOX).html

 

[AtenRa]

Even a 7770 beats that and I've seem them go for as little as $30-40. Personally, if I were a poverty stricken gamer building a budget PC, I'd buy an Haswell i3 / FX6300 + $40-$50 7790 on Ebay and enjoy up to +150% higher FPS for the same money. The biggest competitor to AMD APU's isn't Intel - it's 77xx series low-end AMD GFX cards that can be picked up for a song. Sorry but the 7850K IS overpriced by every metric.

The thing is that A10-7850K HAS NO COMPETITOR, thats why it sells that high. You cannot find another Unlocked 95W TDP CPU + GPU and be able to use it in Slim mini-iTX cases. Premium products command Premium prices, simple as that

Plenty of other sites. Here's one from Abwx's favorite site:-
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html

...and a few more...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/10
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2014/01/30/amd-a10-7850k-and-a10-7700k-kaveri-review/3
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,review-32867-12.html

"They're all wrong I tell you!"

Except bit-tech, non of the other reviews you posted have multi-Tasking :whiste: