Zen hasn't taped out yet

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 1, 2014
74
0
0
You guys are talking about Zen competing with Intel's HEDT line, so I assume you're talking about <Architecture>-E series processors.

Yet, we have commentators here saying that Zen is "trying to find a space between Intel's mainstream line and HEDT". Okay, so which is it?

The only way to do that from a pricing perspective is to aim for the $299-$349 area with appropriate performance. Skylake i7-6700 is $325 - 350 right now. The K version hovers around $399-$419. Those numbers will come back down to reality once yields improve and catch up with demand. I expect to see i7-6700K at $329.99 in around 4-6 months. If it doesn't hit that point, then no one has any reason to ever purchase it, because you can just get a Broadwell-E for $390 and get 2 extra cores and probably similar or better performance.

So if Zen is aiming between these two products, the only price range there is $300 to $350. This isn't a compelling place to be in my mind... but maybe I'm wrong.
If Zen core is competitive and a hexacore can be offered at that price range, then it would be a major improvement over what is going on in recent history. FX 6100 was selling initially for what, 160-180 dollars? And it went south from that, 6300 was much cheaper. This might actually be a good scenario for AMD.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
ehm read more carefully



I said that in order to get the extra quad channel performance that the 2011-V3 platform offers, you need to spend double the price for the Memory. Nobody said you cannot use dual/triple channel on socket 2011-V3.
The platform price is not higher. It is only higher if you want quad channel memory, and only wanted 8Gb of it.

You wrote this as well:
Thus the platform price is higher for the Socket 2011-V3 than Socket 1151/AM4.
That is not true. It is only true if you add qualifiers.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126
Why settle just for 8GB on desktop? And quad channel doesn't have to run in quad mode anyways.

Since DDR-4 minimum capacity per memory stick is 4GB,

Socket 1151 minimum capacity for the MAXIMUM performance of dual channel memory is 2x 4GB DDR-4 = 8Gb.

Socket 2011-V3 minimum capacity for the MAXIMUM performance of quad channel memory is 4x 4GB DDR-4 = 16GB

So if you want the minimum memory capacity for the MAXIMUM performance, you will have to pay double the ram on the socket 2011-V3. simple as that.

Otherwise you will loose the extra performance of the quad channel.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
122
126
So how much does 2x4gb cost for the platform that doesnt require quad? Can you buy cheaper then 4x4gb for the quad platform?

If you dont need 16gb of ram you can spend half as much...
Who buys a HEDT-class platform in order to cheap out and get just 8GB of RAM?
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126
The platform price is not higher. It is only higher if you want quad channel memory, and only wanted 8Gb of it.

You wrote this as well:

That is not true. It is only true if you add qualifiers.
The platform is the CPU + Heat-sink + Motherboard + Memory.

The final cost per platform is higher on the Socket 2011-V3 than Socket 1151.

Read my post above.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
The platform is the CPU + Heat-sink + Motherboard + Memory.

The final cost per platform is higher on the Socket 2011-V3 than Socket 1151.

Read my post above.
We were talking about the "requirement" of quad channel memory for the Intel system, and the supposed advantage that gives AMD which doesn't support it. When reality shows that Intel systems can also choose dual channel memory.

Let's not change the argument here.

And forgive me for replying to this nonsense. It won't happen again. You can't argue against someone so biased.
 

fourdegrees11

Senior member
Mar 9, 2009
441
0
76
Who buys a HEDT-class platform in order to cheap out and get just 8GB of RAM?
So what exactly does this have to do with one platform requiring you spend twice as much on ram, and you not being able to comprehend that?

Something about goalposts changing...
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126
We were talking about the "requirement" of quad channel memory for the Intel system, and the supposed advantage that gives AMD which doesn't support it. When reality shows that Intel systems can also choose dual channel memory.

Let's not change the argument here.

And forgive me for replying to this nonsense. It won't happen again. You can't argue against someone so biased.
Next time read more carefully,

The context was that AM4 AND Socket 1151 platform is cheaper than Socket 2011-V3. I have explained why above, read my posts and you will see it was not only because of the Quad Channel.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
Next time read more carefully,

The context was that AM4 AND Socket 1151 platform is cheaper than Socket 2011-V3. I have explained why above, read my posts and you will see it was not only because of the Quad Channel.
Apparently you can't keep it straight either, or you wouldn't require the x99 system to use quad channel to be compared to AMD's AM4.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
So what exactly does this have to do with one platform requiring you spend twice as much on ram, and you not being able to comprehend that?

Something about goalposts changing...
Except you aren't required to get more than 8Gb. It's only 16Gb if you require quad channel memory, which AMD's system doesn't even support.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,755
143
136
As it is now Intel is setting product mix and pricing as they did back in the first part of the nineties. That is as if they were practically the only on the market and the competing goods could as well be red apples.

The positive outlook from this as a consumer is, if zen is only half as good as we could hope for it will have a huge impact on pricing. Eg intel offfering 6 cores smt as basic enthusiast i5 line. 4 core as i3. If we look at mm2 Intel have a big room to be far more competitive just changing a bit of capacity for the same revenue.

That also shows Amd is in a very bad position and any analysis based on current product mix and pricing is nonsense. Even a mildly competitive Zen will change the landscape but any chance to hit some minor segment is nonexistent.

My guess is Intel still have plenty if not to much capacity and at the time zen hits 14nm yield will be really fine.

Amd need a slam dunk for the market it targets or it just doesnt matter for profit. For the last 20 years i have not seen the company beeing focused one single time. Its small doses of focus like fuji nano, k62 for mobile, bobcat but never big hits that matters big time. And never with a follow up or in a consistent strategy. The engineering seems excellent. But the business is so damn unfocused or plain stupid - eg competing head on for Intel all over portfolio. Zen is conciewed 4-5 years back and its born in that unfocused period.

But hey. If they go for 8 core consumer highend as a starter its stupid as always but cant be anything but good for us as it means more cores for same € whatever the label :)
 

Boze

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
630
0
91
Man you guys crack me up... like you can't order two 2 x 4 GB DDR4 kits for $39.99 each at Newegg right now. Yeah, 16 GB of DDR4 2400 RAM for $79.98.

Yes, platform cost in terms of motherboard is a little pricey at $165 (cheapest X99 motherboard I could find), but no one's comparing that.

Furthermore, X99 chipsets don't skimp out on features at all either. The lowest audio codec I've seen is ALC892, they all have at least 8 SATA III ports, one PCI-E x16 slot @ 16x, and usually a lot of other features.

Going HEDT from a perspective of price may be expensive in terms of processor and motherboard, but it damn sure isn't from RAM.

There's your quad channel system, with 16 GB of RAM, for $80.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126
Apparently you can't keep it straight either, or you wouldn't require the x99 system to use quad channel to be compared to AMD's AM4.
How many times do i have to say that the higher cost of the Platform is not only the 4x memory sticks ???

Socket 2011-V3 motherboards have way higher BOM than both AM4 and 1151.

More expensive X99 chipset
More PCB layers due to 140W TDP
More PCB layers due to quad Channel
More robust Electrical circuitry and components due to 140W TDP

All that and more makes the production cost of 2011-V3 motherboards more expensive than AM4/1151.

You also need a CPU heat-sink because every Socket 2011-V3 CPU doesnt have one. And not every Heat-sink out there is 2011-V3 compatible, so even if you already have an after market heat-sink you probably have to buy a new one.

So you see that even before we touch the quad memory channel, Socket 2011-V3 is more expensive.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
122
126
So what exactly does this have to do with one platform requiring you spend twice as much on ram, and you not being able to comprehend that?

Something about goalposts changing...
X99 runs just fine with 2 sticks of memory.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
How many times do i have to say that the higher cost of the Platform is not only the 4x memory sticks ???

Socket 2011-V3 motherboards have way higher BOM than both AM4 and 1151.

More expensive X99 chipset
More PCB layers due to 140W TDP
More PCB layers due to quad Channel
More robust Electrical circuitry and components due to 140W TDP

All that and more makes the production cost of 2011-V3 motherboards more expensive than AM4/1151.

You also need a CPU heat-sink because every Socket 2011-V3 CPU doesnt have one. And not every Heat-sink out there is 2011-V3 compatible, so even if you already have an after market heat-sink you probably have to buy a new one.

So you see that even before we touch the quad memory channel, Socket 2011-V3 is more expensive.
I wasn't arguing about anything else but your claim that you had to buy 16Gb of DDR4 as a minimum for the x99 system.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126
I wasn't arguing about anything else but your claim that you had to buy 16Gb of DDR4 as a minimum for the x99 system.
No, i said if you want to have the Quad Memory channel performance you have to spend double on the memory for Socket 2011-V3 vs AM4 and 1151.
 

Boze

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
630
0
91
No, i said if you want to have the Quad Memory channel performance you have to spend double on the memory for Socket 2011-V3 vs AM4 and 1151.
Double, in this case, being $80 instead of $40.

So basically, skip eating a fast food combo meal for four times, which most Americans could stand to do anyway.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126
Double, in this case, being $80 instead of $40.

So basically, skip eating a fast food combo meal for four times, which most Americans could stand to do anyway.
you have to add that to the higher cost of the board + Heatsink + perhaps the CPU itself.

So at the end, you will starve to death before you are able to get the socket 2011-V3 platform :p
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
you have to add that to the higher cost of the board + Heatsink + perhaps the CPU itself.

So at the end, you will starve to death before you are able to get the socket 2011-V3 platform :p
We are talking about HEDT's. I'm not sure why you are focusing on budget builds.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,968
233
126

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
715
0
136
Laws of physics are what they are, whatever the saying of the fanboizs, a transistor A that need 1.1x higher voltage than a transistor B to switch at a same frequency will have inherently 1.21x higher power comsumption, and that s the ratio between GF s and Intel s process used for BDW.

It could be even worse than that as SKL seems to necessitate more voltage than BDW although this could be due to high dispersion of the process, but whatever AMD will not be handicapped by a less efficient process, to the contrary, up to 3GHz+ they could have the upper hand independently of the uarch efficency.
The laws of physics are indeed as they are, but they are not as simple as you describe.

Simply put, the voltage used to switch a transistor is mostly irrelevant to the total power consumed. You need to know the switching current, the switching voltage, and the switching speed to calculate the power. We know none of this accurately enough to compare (if anyone has this data, I'd be wonderfully excited to know it and so some maths :thumbsup:).

I'm inclined to believe that the power efficiency between them won't be very different, though I'd suspect Samsung's 14nm LPE/P will have lower power use for switching transistors as that was its sole purpose in being developed, whereas Intel had to design for a much higher power and performance target.
 
Mar 27, 2009
12,943
30
106
Also I don't remember seeing complaints about dual channel in the ASRock X99E-ITX reviews I read.
It does tend to knock off around 5% from general performance, possibly a little more depending on the situation and exact CPU being used. Not too big of a sacrifice to be made for the sake of a Mini-ITX motherboard, but it does show that the extra two memory channels aren't just there for decoration (or for the sake of those who need the extra capacity).
I am assuming these tests were with quad channel DDR4 2133/2400 vs. dual channel DDR4 2133/2400.

For the future (when DDR4 3200 becomes common place) here is what I would think would be an interesting comparison:

---quad channel (4 x 4GB) DDR4 2133 or 2400 vs. dual channel (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3200.

Does the faster dual channel close that last bit of the 5% gap, or does future DDR4 2133 or DDR4 2400 also make a gain (due to having improved timings compared to the DDR4 2133 and DDR4 2400 we see today)?

Or maybe the lowest latency DDR4 2133 or DDR4 2400 ends up only available in 8GB DIMM size (not 4GB DIMM size) making the dual channel DDR4 3200 vs. quad channel DDR4 2133/ 2400 (with reduced latency) comparison more difficult?
 
Last edited:

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
715
0
136
The platform is the CPU + Heat-sink + Motherboard + Memory.

The final cost per platform is higher on the Socket 2011-V3 than Socket 1151.

Read my post above.
The RAM argument is a moot point, really, so long as both use DDR4 and can run the same kits, then you go with lowest common denominator (dual channel DDR4).

The CPU will cost more per net unit of performance, almost certainly. HEDT Zen may or may not come with a heatsink, who knows, but I'm willing to bet that You can use AM2/AM3/FM2/FM2+/etc heatsinks on AM4, as AMD has the best mounting system there is and have no reason to change it, so you will have a broader array of available heatsinks or waterblocks from which to choose for AM4.

The motherboard is where the real difference in cost lies. The cheapest 2011-V3 motherboard I can find that is not used/opened is $194. The cheapest 1151 motherboard is $40. Of course, these aren't comparable, feature-wise, but most people don't need all the features offered on the cheapest 2011-V3 board, either. Personally, I aim for the ~$150 area, but the cheapest 1151 motherboard that has the features I need is only $100.

So, either way, we're talking a good $50-$100 cheaper for mid/high-range AM4 than entry-level 2011-v3 for the motherboard alone.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
Looking at pcpartspicker, I found a few a bit cheaper. $163 was the cheapest I saw. Though that was with a rebate. Most the other ones were too, that were in that range.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS