12 ms·

Appreciate the context for that comparison, but imagine that CPU for probably 50% or less the cost and with a DDR4 controller. Sounds like a valuable product to

Appreciate the context for that comparison, but imagine that CPU for probably 50% or less the cost and with a DDR4 controller. Sounds like a valuable product to me. Maybe somebody could give us an estimated performance per dollar based on this some previous AMD CPU releases..

oofabz 10y ago
The i7-5960X has a DDR4 controller. I believe it was the first mainstream CPU with DDR4.
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  All the LGA2011 parts in that generation support DDR4. My 5820K does.
Sanddancer 10y ago
The 5960x already is DDR4. Also, Intel's supposed to be releasing the Broadwell-E 6950X in a few weeks, which will have 10 cores. That being said, the 6950X is also supposed to be $1500. The real fun will be the bang/buck comparison against the 6900K, which is going to have 8 cores and be $1000. Regarding bang/buck, it's hard to say, but I'd probably say that AMD places their part at the $800 price point, which would definitely give it a decent bang/buck. Another wrench in comparing things is that AMD's promising some interesting peripheral support, like 64 lanes of pcie, usb 3.1 and direct nvme support, which will further complicate direct comparisons until release date. Intel's hanging on with the x99 chipset, which is stuck with usb 2.0 and pcie 2 for the support lanes. Fall will be interesting, to say the least.
- sundvor 10y ago
  On an overclocked 2600k now, with the ageing Sandy Bridge, I'm in the market for a >4 core CPU myself. It's a shame the AMD is nearly half a year away, I need the invoice dated June 30 at the latest for tax purposes. So if the AUD isn't too horrible I'll probably just get a 6850k, water-cooled and overclocked, with the Samsung 950 M2 drive and 32gb DDR4 ram with room for 64. For my work in Visual Studio/NCrunch/Resharper this will be a killer combo, especially for the I/O offered by 4 PCIE lanes to the SSD. Can't wait to see Intel get some competition again though.
  - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
    > On an overclocked 2600k now I'm on an overclocked FX-8320E and this is what it looks like: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1601020-HA-1512297GA19&obr_sor=y&obr_hgv=FX-8370E&obr_sor=y&obr_hgv=FX-8320E%404.4GHz http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1601020-HA-1512297GA19&ob... The competition is already there, if your software is designed for the multicore age.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Appreciate the context for that comparison, but imagine that CPU for probably 50% or less the cost and with a DDR4 controller. Not only that, the differences between Haswell (2014) and Broadwell (2016) are fairly modest. And nobody buys the $999 version anyway -- if they can make something that competes with the i5 at the $300 price point they're in business.
- jjaredsimpson 10y ago
  the i5 6600k costs 230
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    The i5-6685R is $288. Several of the mobile versions are more. Regardless, you get the point. It matters much more that they have something competitive with the Intel processors that constitute the bulk of market volume than that they can beat the crazy expensive one that doesn't.
taspeotis 10y ago
> imagine that CPU for probably 50% or less the cost Intel is raking it in right now because AMD doesn't have an equivalent product. If AMD produces a competitive chip Intel should reduce their prices. So it is possible AMD releases this chip and Intel reduces the price of the 5960X. End result => people still buy Intel.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Sure, but Intel's chips still won't be the best "value for the money" if Zen is as good as AMD claims it is. Intel will never go toe-to-toe with AMD on pricing, at least not in the long term (1+ years), and unless it's approaching bankruptcy, which I assume isn't the case for now. Intel's chips are the best value for the money right now because AMD totally messed up its last microarchitecture. They bet on something (high parallelization) that didn't pan out. And they suffered greatly for it. Kind of how Sony went with the Cell processor in the PS3 (although Sony did make the best of it in the end). But Zen completely changes that equation. Zen is basically a direct and very close competitor to Intel's current microarchitecture and they should have rather similar performance. However, It doesn't mean AMD's chips will necessarily beat Intel's chips in "peak performance". Because for one, Intel still has a better process technology, and second, AMD still had to compete with a moving target (albeit a very slowly moving target - Skylake is only like 20-25% faster in single-thread performance compared to Sandy Bridge). But I imagine Zen is going to be within 10% or so of Intel's equivalent chips in single-thread performance, but potentially much better at multi-threaded performance if AMD actually sells twice as many Zen cores in its similar priced chips (8-core Zen vs quad-core Core i6, quad-core Zen vs dual-core Core i5, etc). On top of having more cores, AMD may also offer lower pricing points that outweighs the 10% difference in single-thread performance, but that remains to be seen (I probably wouldn't do that if I were them, as double the cores at a similar pricing point should be more than enough value for money).
  - qarioz 10y ago
    > Intel will never go toe-to-toe with AMD on pricing, at least not in the long term (1+ years), and unless it's approaching bankruptcy, which I assume isn't the case for now. That's why Intel still keep their own fabs and AMD don't have fab anymore.
tbrock 10y ago
It already costs 50% less or at least is about to because it's almost 2 years old.
- kayoone 10y ago
  This is usually not true for very high end CPUs once they get older, they might even get more expensive. Here in Germany, the 5960X is still >1000 EUR for example.

oofabz 10y ago

The i7-5960X has a DDR4 controller. I believe it was the first mainstream CPU with DDR4.

jschwartzi 10y ago
All the LGA2011 parts in that generation support DDR4. My 5820K does.

Sanddancer 10y ago

The 5960x already is DDR4. Also, Intel's supposed to be releasing the Broadwell-E 6950X in a few weeks, which will have 10 cores. That being said, the 6950X is also supposed to be $1500. The real fun will be the bang/buck comparison against the 6900K, which is going to have 8 cores and be $1000. Regarding bang/buck, it's hard to say, but I'd probably say that AMD places their part at the $800 price point, which would definitely give it a decent bang/buck. Another wrench in comparing things is that AMD's promising some interesting peripheral support, like 64 lanes of pcie, usb 3.1 and direct nvme support, which will further complicate direct comparisons until release date. Intel's hanging on with the x99 chipset, which is stuck with usb 2.0 and pcie 2 for the support lanes. Fall will be interesting, to say the least.

sundvor 10y ago
On an overclocked 2600k now, with the ageing Sandy Bridge, I'm in the market for a >4 core CPU myself. It's a shame the AMD is nearly half a year away, I need the invoice dated June 30 at the latest for tax purposes. So if the AUD isn't too horrible I'll probably just get a 6850k, water-cooled and overclocked, with the Samsung 950 M2 drive and 32gb DDR4 ram with room for 64. For my work in Visual Studio/NCrunch/Resharper this will be a killer combo, especially for the I/O offered by 4 PCIE lanes to the SSD. Can't wait to see Intel get some competition again though.
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago
  > On an overclocked 2600k now I'm on an overclocked FX-8320E and this is what it looks like: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1601020-HA-1512297GA19&obr_sor=y&obr_hgv=FX-8370E&obr_sor=y&obr_hgv=FX-8320E%404.4GHz http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1601020-HA-1512297GA19&ob... The competition is already there, if your software is designed for the multicore age.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> Appreciate the context for that comparison, but imagine that CPU for probably 50% or less the cost and with a DDR4 controller. Not only that, the differences between Haswell (2014) and Broadwell (2016) are fairly modest. And nobody buys the $999 version anyway -- if they can make something that competes with the i5 at the $300 price point they're in business.

jjaredsimpson 10y ago
the i5 6600k costs 230
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The i5-6685R is $288. Several of the mobile versions are more. Regardless, you get the point. It matters much more that they have something competitive with the Intel processors that constitute the bulk of market volume than that they can beat the crazy expensive one that doesn't.

taspeotis 10y ago

> imagine that CPU for probably 50% or less the cost Intel is raking it in right now because AMD doesn't have an equivalent product. If AMD produces a competitive chip Intel should reduce their prices. So it is possible AMD releases this chip and Intel reduces the price of the 5960X. End result => people still buy Intel.

mtgx 10y ago
Sure, but Intel's chips still won't be the best "value for the money" if Zen is as good as AMD claims it is. Intel will never go toe-to-toe with AMD on pricing, at least not in the long term (1+ years), and unless it's approaching bankruptcy, which I assume isn't the case for now. Intel's chips are the best value for the money right now because AMD totally messed up its last microarchitecture. They bet on something (high parallelization) that didn't pan out. And they suffered greatly for it. Kind of how Sony went with the Cell processor in the PS3 (although Sony did make the best of it in the end). But Zen completely changes that equation. Zen is basically a direct and very close competitor to Intel's current microarchitecture and they should have rather similar performance. However, It doesn't mean AMD's chips will necessarily beat Intel's chips in "peak performance". Because for one, Intel still has a better process technology, and second, AMD still had to compete with a moving target (albeit a very slowly moving target - Skylake is only like 20-25% faster in single-thread performance compared to Sandy Bridge). But I imagine Zen is going to be within 10% or so of Intel's equivalent chips in single-thread performance, but potentially much better at multi-threaded performance if AMD actually sells twice as many Zen cores in its similar priced chips (8-core Zen vs quad-core Core i6, quad-core Zen vs dual-core Core i5, etc). On top of having more cores, AMD may also offer lower pricing points that outweighs the 10% difference in single-thread performance, but that remains to be seen (I probably wouldn't do that if I were them, as double the cores at a similar pricing point should be more than enough value for money).
- qarioz 10y ago
  > Intel will never go toe-to-toe with AMD on pricing, at least not in the long term (1+ years), and unless it's approaching bankruptcy, which I assume isn't the case for now. That's why Intel still keep their own fabs and AMD don't have fab anymore.

tbrock 10y ago

It already costs 50% less or at least is about to because it's almost 2 years old.

kayoone 10y ago
This is usually not true for very high end CPUs once they get older, they might even get more expensive. Here in Germany, the 5960X is still >1000 EUR for example.