28 ms·
AMD Gives More Zen Details
- smegel 10y agoFlagged for non-English link.
- protomyth 10y agoHere is an English article: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-eight-core-cpu,33180.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-eight-core-cpu,33...
- vcarl 10y ago> in a HandBrake-based video transcoding task, Ryzen scored a narrow win [against a stock i7-6900k] Man, if that holds true in more benchmarks, that's fantastic news. AMD chugged along by "competing" further and further down Intel's product line more or less since Sandy Bridge, if they can genuinely compete with the i7 now I can't wait to see the next few years. Intel has always seemed content to release incremental improvements until they get kicked in the pants by somebody else, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bunch of stuff waiting in the wings to maintain their edge over AMD.
- dom0 10y agoI think AMDs downfall started way before SB. AMD was competitive against Core and Core 2, but already Nehalem was rather... troubling. SB and the following iterations where just the death stab in many markets for AMD; after SB AMD didn't even try to compete with Intel in the server markets (their platform is six years old. Their newest server processors were released in 2012). AMD fell the moment they failed to improve over K10.
- swasheck 10y agoPurchasing ATI didn't seem to help them much, either. Perhaps it was to offset the losses that they saw coming, but it also seemed to distract them a bit.
- agumonkey 10y agoI never understood what were the failure and what could AMD have done better. When intel started to be ahead in single threaded IPC, AMD tried to innovate by bringing low consumption, multi threaded, with embedded GPUs cheap SoC. It seemed quite in touch with the early netbooks where people would need a blend of capabilities (hardware video accel, compositing / CSS3 able GPU) instead of a compilation workhorse. I don't know if the designs were really absurd, or if the market couldn't understand AMD's value prop. Or if the programmers couldn't (or wouldn't) tap into their APU idea. Multiple papercuts made them fall I guess.
- EpicBlackCrayon 10y agoThe funny thing is that that's where the market is sort of heading now.
- dom0 10y agoAPUs didn't take off except in low-end-ish notebooks and low-end desktop computers not because the idea is bad, or the graphics performance was poor (it wasn't), but because the CPU part was subpar. The gaming consoles show how well the concept works, although, sadly for AMD, these deals may be high volume but don't have high margins. AMD dedicated graphics have only minor issues imho, they're very competitive with nVidias offerings. But in the professional and compute segments they fail to take off, because nVidia established the popular, proprietary CUDA standard there. I don't think there's a (major) technical reason why AMD has much less market share there.
- gsnedders 10y ago> The gaming consoles show how well the concept works, although, sadly for AMD, these deals may be high volume but don't have high margins. They're likely fairly consistent income, however, even if the margins are relatively slim. For a company in AMD's state, constant income no matter how small is likely a good thing.
- agumonkey 10y agoDelta of 5 seconds (54s for ryzen, 59s for 6900k). Also IIRC, ryzen wasn't using any form of boost while the 6900k was allowed to push its enveloppe. Not a time to buy an intel cpu.
- dogma1138 10y agoTre 6900k was not only not boosting they downclocked it to a locked 3.0ghz.... If there is no room for boost on Zen parts it's gonna be dead in the water for enthusiasts. My 5820k does 4.6ghz and it's a 6 core part. That said what's even more important is going to be USB 3/3.1, storage and PCIe performance which ATM on AMDs current platforms are abysmal.
- agumonkey 10y agoI missed the mention to 3GHz lock, did they mention it on the live feed or to journalists ?
- dogma1138 10y agoNo you didn't I thought you were referencing the old blender demo. They apperantly did another one. Would be interesting to see the boost stats in that case, 3.7 boost is a bit low for a 6900k part tho everyone I know that had it rubs it around 4.2-4.3ghz.
- pixel_fcker 10y agoAnyone know how well handbrake scales with number of cores? Also are the 8 cores they're claiming 8 physical cores or logical?
- ac29 10y ago8C/16T
- pixel_fcker 10y agoOop yes it says so on the image on the page. Depending on price point this could be very interesting. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing what they can offer in high-core-count models. Shame they still seem to have a 15-year-old in charge of marketing though. Should have just stuck with "Zen".
- anonbanker 10y agoit seems like their naming scheme is to take a three-syllable name, and cut off the first syllable. Triathalon -> Athlon, Centurion -> Turion, Horizon -> Rizen.
- elihu 10y ago"Zen" is a lot harder to trademark than "Ryzen". Also, it sounds like "Ryzen" is their consumer product line. Their server product line might be called something else. It makes sense to have multiple product lines with different names and to refer to the common microarchitecture as "Zen".
- pixel_fcker 10y agoAnyone know how well handbrake scales with number of cores? Also are the 8 cores they're claiming 8 physical cores or logical?
- gsnedders 10y agoThe i7-6900K is a Broadwell-E part (i.e., not their "mainstream" high-end parts)—while it implies an eight-core part against an eight-core part is competitive, it doesn't say anything about four-core against four-core (which as far as I know at Intel are different designs from different masks, and that's ignoring the fact that now the competition there is Skylake and a different microarchitecture too).
- CyberDildonics 10y agoIt isn't boxing, you don't have to put two chips in a head to head battle to see who wins. AMD was never expected to beat Intel's best, they are expected to beat Intel on price performance.
- bluedino 10y agoYou could cherry pick benchmarks back in the Bulldozer days that AMD would edge intel out in - while getting handily beat in everything else
- tormeh 10y agoThey were real-world though. The Bulldozer architecture is optimal for some applications, just not very many that mattered at the time (and even now). I think the architecture was just way ahead of its time. It anticipated the software practices of the future and tried to build a CPU for it within the confines of today. Such futurism is impressive, although kinda foolish, for such a capital-intensive product.
- Zardoz84 10y agoThe final result is that the Bulldozer and derivated cores, has aged very well. Any FX core works better now that they was released, because actually a lot of programs have in mind multicore that when the original FXs was released.
- elcct 10y agoBut is it going to support ECC memory? Also with Intel you can upgrade to more performant Xeons. What can you upgrade AMD to?
- peller 10y agoThere will most certainly be a server variant. Currently on schedule for Q2 (this article is about the desktop variant, which is scheduled for Q1. Maybe at CES?) For both companies, you typically need a different socket/chipset/mainboard for the server chips.
- simplyinfinity 10y agoSpeculations AFAIK are that it will be presented at CES and go on sale by end of January... but don't quote me on that. Personally, I will be buying a new PC with Ryzen as soon as they get out.
- kinghajj 10y agoAMD typically includes ECC support in "consumer" chips. Not all boards, do. I'm worried too, though, that this still hasn't been confirmed yet. An 8-core at 3.4+ GHz sounds perfect for a workstation.
- devonkim 10y agoA lot of motherboard manufacturers have stopped supporting ECC on their boards with recent AMD sockets but I think Asus is the last holdout.
- anoother 10y agoASUS is one of the few that lists it on their spec sheets. But I believe Gigabyte also supports it on a number of current boards, along with some other manufacturers.
- stefantalpalaru 10y agoECC support is the norm with AMD CPUs. Even my cheap GA-970A-UD3 motherboard supports it.
- zython 10y agoIs there a MSRP for the RYZEN flagship that they showed off today yet, because I havent seen one. But as long as it stays under the $1100 of the 6900K I think they can secure the mid to high-end enthusiast grade market which is good because I am tired of intel controlling that portion of the market
- wmf 10y agoThere are rumors about $500.
- agumonkey 10y agoIf they're still making an adequate profit at 500$ they're gonna grab a very healthy chunk of the market. It's more than half intel's competing product. Even price cuts ..
- dogma1138 10y agoIt will depend on how well they'll be able to push the CPU in 4 core mode. If they can't reach at least 4ghz it wouldn't matter. Games are not optimized well beyound 3-4 cores these days I can disable 2-3 cores on my 6 core CPU and maybe lose 5% fps in CPU intensive games. Intel can push their clocks pretty darn high especially with OC which now comes out of the box with every enthusiast grade motherboard. If you end up having a 3.4ghz part going against a 4.5ghz part the 4 extra cores might not matter. Even in professional use cases adobe doesn't scale above 4 threads like at all and many video encoders also don't scale some even don't scale beyond 2. The only thing that really scales well universally is 3D rendering.
- agumonkey 10y agoGood points overall, but I wonder what about new usages like neural networks ? Seems like new tricks might make multi threading a bit more trendy compared to previous years.
- 10y ago
- dbcooper 10y agoAnandtech article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10907/amd-gives-more-zen-details-ryzen-34-ghz-nvme-neural-net-prediction-25-mhz-boost-steps http://www.anandtech.com/show/10907/amd-gives-more-zen-detai... 3.4+ GHz for 8-core base frequency (TDP is apparently 95W) is good news.
- walrus01 10y ago95W? Given AMD's recent poor track record in terms of $$$/performance for desktop CPUs... I'll be extremely surprised if it's faster than a 4-core core i5 skylake which runs at 65W TDP, in the $200 per cpu price range.
- mpg33 10y agoIf the the brief benchmarks they showed at the event are true it is roughly equal to a i7-6900k when both are at base clocks.
- walrus01 10y agoThey showed a single hand picked benchmark for video encoding. I'll truly believe it when I see a mixed head to head comparison like: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700...
- xorxornop 10y agoWhat? No. They did Blender, Handbrake, Battlefield 1, and something else I don't remember. It met or exceeded the competing Intel chip in every one. I know, I was surprised too... I used to buy AMD, but haven't in some time now. Perhaps I will again...
- theandrewbailey 10y agoI was also an AMD fan back in the day. I'm due for a new system, and I'm eagerly waiting for Zen reviews. If it hold up, I'll happily buy one.
- walterbell 10y agoDoes AMD now have an equivalent to Intel's open-source tboot for DRTM? In the past, AMD avoided artificial "enterprise" segmentation with security features like IOMMU, but did not always have the necessary BIOS, board (e.g. TPM) and open-source tooling that Intel solutions provided.
- tcoppi 10y agoThey are staying consistent with a 40% IPC improvement number, which is great. This should finally be competitive with Intel's current offerings.
- rl3 10y agoDuring the press event it was suggested the boost mode would operate primarily off of temperature, taking into account high-end cooling setups. Seemed interesting, if not innovative. As far as I'm aware, existing boost modes tend to be static ranges. I'd really like to see Ryzen meet or exceed Intel i7-6700K/7700K single-core performance using boost mode clocks with a reasonable cooling setup. That would eliminate any reason whatsoever to choose Intel for gaming until their 10nm product arrives Q3 2017.
- trome 10y agoYeah, I wouldn't set your hopes that high, if that were the case Intel has 4 to 5 generations of silicon already prepped that they could start churning out in volume within 3 months. Comparatively, AMD has been building chips to order as of late, since they do not have the money to build a bunch of chips that may or may not sell, so your looking at a 3 to 4 month delay before you can get a new chip like Ryzen after announcement. The cache arrangement (see pic halfway down) and better branch prediction are interesting though, cache has always been a space where Intel has been able to use way less transistors to store the same amount of data. http://semiaccurate.com/2016/12/13/amds-zen-becomes-ryzen/ http://semiaccurate.com/2016/12/13/amds-zen-becomes-ryzen/
- rl3 10y ago>... if that were the case Intel has 4 to 5 generations of silicon already prepped that they could start churning out in volume within 3 months. Can you elaborate? I'm fairly certain Intel deviating from their existing roadmap to such a degree and on such short notice would be extremely difficult at best.
- trome 10y agoAfter the Pentium 4 debacle, Intel Israel came up with the Core micro-architecture to replace it. Since then, Intel has built up a 4 to 5 year buffer of developed silicon so that if any generation or two is worse than their competitors, they won't be caught flat footed & have to pay contra-revenue to incentivize manufacturers to use their chips. Most notably this can be seen in review samples of chips sent out, where AMD and Qualcomm will send out chips dated as being made shortly before being sent per the packaging, Intel will send out chips that are dated 4 to 5 years old, as they are from the first or second run of silicon that Intel did with that chip design.
- deepnotderp 10y agoNeural network for memory access huh? Interesting!
- agumonkey 10y agoI wonder how this will affect the software side. Programmers and compilers.. how do you interface with a NN based prefetcher to avoid regression and hiccups.
- snerbles 10y agoIf it's a truly adaptive branch predictor, one could naively believe it will yield good results for most inputs. Even if it's an absurdly deep pipeline with a cache miss penalty worse than the Pentium 4, it would be premature optimization for the vast majority of programs.
- filereaper 10y agoMost processors only let compilers give a hint of strongly taken or strongly not-taken. I don't have any numbers which show regressions, but a NN should be able to take the compilers hint.
- PeCaN 10y agoI believe Intel has been doing this for a while, or at least it's definitely not the first time I've heard of the idea. ‘Neutral network’ is more of a marketing term, though somewhat accurate in that it's a number of perceptrons doing statistical branch prediction. No multilayered networks (as far as I know) have been used in any CPU to date.
- Tuna-Fish 10y agoNo. Perceptron predictors are very much an AMD thing, and they have been doing them for a while. Intel uses more traditional predictors but with larger buffers. Both approaches have situations that are more or less favorable to them.
- pinnbert 10y agoBoring. Meanwhile we have HBM monsters in the video card space.
- mtgx 10y agoCan we all give Mark Papermaster a healthy round of applause? Amazing what he accomplished. Who would've thought AMD would ever even come close to Intel in performance again?
- hellofunk 10y agoAn interesting read about the Zen by a financial analyst: http://seekingalpha.com/article/4030174-advanced-micro-devices-quite-filter http://seekingalpha.com/article/4030174-advanced-micro-devic...
- mmanfrin 10y agoSeeking Alpha is so pushy about registration. 2nd page or below the fold, it stops you. Use mobile and it stops you (and forces you to use their app). Their app continually pushes for registration and is very neutered without it. If they are this pushy to get my information, how pushy are they in selling it or in spamming me?
- Dagwoodie 10y agoI don't trust them either, in fact no "pay" wall I've ever seen has pissed me off more than Seeking Alpha.
- kefka 10y agoIm currently using Throw Away Email, and wow, they are nasty pushy. And yes, I'm polluting their Database. Too bad, so sad :) Theyre digging in "what kind of brokerage work do you do" and then asking very pointed money-market questions. When you get to "Suggestions" they aren't suggestions; they force you to enter multiple stocks. So fuck them. Here's a Copy/Paste. _______________________________________________ Summary In my previous article I showed how speculation going into Zen's launch greatly exceeded speculation going into the Athlon and Opteron launches. In this article, I take the comparisons further. I compare both the revenues expected/attained by AMD and the market caps into the 3 launches. The Investors of today like AMD nearly 4x better than when Opteron (or Athlon, for that matter) was looking pretty. My thesis on Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE:AMD) is as follows: I am negative on AMD because it is my belief, based on leaked benchmarks, that the company's incoming Zen-based CPUs will still underperform Intel's offerings materially, when it comes to single-threaded performance. I believe AMD will compensate for this the same way it has, historically: by selling CPUs with a higher core count. This puts AMD at an intrinsic margin disadvantage, which is made worse by the fact that AMD is fabless whereas Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) runs its own factories (so AMD loses the foundry margin as well). I also think AMD got way ahead of itself. In my last article, titled "Advanced Micro Devices: Then And Now", I explained this by showing AMD's behavior versus how it behaved during 2 extraordinary past events: the launch of the original Athlon and original Opteron. In both those instances AMD stepped ahead of Intel while with Zen AMD is only expected to get close to Intel. Still, in both of those instances AMD had nothing like the present run going into those launches. While I am negative on AMD, I am not negative enough to sell it short. I don't think the timing is right for such a move. I also think that there's the chance Zen gets "close enough" even if it underperforms, allowing for substantial share gains while selling at a discount. Thus, before considering selling short AMD, I'm waiting to see how Zen actually performs. With that being put out of the way, I'm writing this article because I think the prior one didn't quite filter through. From the comments, one would guess that the message "AMD is much more speculative going into Zen than going into Athlon or Opteron" didn't register. The criticism was far and wide, including such things as: This time is different because the market is larger. This time AMD is different because it also has GPUs and custom silicon and whatnot. That's only share price (it was an adjusted share price …), not market capitalization. AMD was thought to go bankrupt this time, and back in 1999 or 2003 that wasn't the case. Etc, etc. Well, I feel I need to give some more detail here. This detail will show that sentiment today is even more extraordinary than what the previous charts showed. So here we go. Revenues, Now And Then Over the last 12 months, AMD has produced $4.24 billion in revenues. For 2017, including the early Zen launch, expectations are for $4.55 billion in revenues. Now, remember: This includes Zen. This includes GPUs. This includes custom solutions (consoles, etc). Why is this revenue number relevant? Consider the following regarding the past two episodes I mentioned: Athlon. In 2000, AMD had revenues of $4.64 billion. Opteron. In 2004, AMD had revenues of $5.0 billion. In short, AMD's revenues were larger in both those years, versus those expected for 2017 including Zen. This includes Zen, GPUs and everything else, thus rendering the arguments that AMD is "much more" today completely moot. Market Capitalization, Now And Then In my previous article I compared just the relative share prices going into product launches. Of course, AMD has had many losses and M&A (acquiring ATI) throughout the years. This naturally led to a much higher share count today, versus what it was back in 1999/2003. How much higher? As of the last 10-Q, AMD reported a diluted share count of 815 million shares. Potentially, the actual diluted count is over 1 billion shares (diluted shares for the quarter don't include all potential dilution because AMD reported a loss). As of 1999 year-end, AMD had a diluted share count of 294.6 million shares. As of 2003 year-end, AMD had a diluted share count of 346.9 million shares. Now consider the following: After the current run, AMD sits at $10.75. This gives it a market capitalization of around $10.75 billion. When AMD released the Athlon, the stock stood at $9.58. This gave it a market capitalization of around $2.82 billion. When AMD released the Opteron, the stock stood at $8.47. This gave it a market capitalization of around $2.94 billion. It's easy to see that AMD's market cap today is wildly higher than what it was back then (1999, 2003). That is, while the share price isn't much different, due to the share count AMD today is valued at a significant multiple of AMD right before either the Athlon or Opteron were launched. Conclusion From this exercise we see that: AMD today is expected to have lower revenues when it starts selling Zen, versus the revenues it reached when it was selling the Athlon and Opteron. Perhaps estimates will be revised higher. Perhaps even much higher. But the present estimates are factually lower than what was attained back then. Yet, at the same time, AMD goes for a market capitalization that's 3.6-3.8x higher than it was back then, going into the Zen launch. Thus, it isn't hard to conclude that the AMD of today is massively more speculative than the AMD of either 1999 or 2003. All the arguments that it has more products now are also rather irrelevant when we consider that today's AMD is still expected to be smaller than the AMD which resulted from those past (successful) launches. Never mind that we're comparing numbers after a verified success (1999, 2003), to an uncertain success (2017). Finally, yes, AMD is more diversified today. However, AMD isn't potentially more profitable because back in 1999/2003 it controlled its own foundry and now it doesn't. Instead, right now AMD has contracts which try to assure the foundry's economic returns, while punishing AMD's. All of this being factual, what we can easily say is that today AMD's stock discounts improvements wildly in excess of the analysts' expectations. If those improvements don't materialize -- well in excess of expectations -- the stock will have very significant downside. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
- randiantech 10y agoIs it plausible a procesador like this to be used on new Xbox scorpio, later next year?
- peller 10y agoThe original Xbox One used a Jaguar[0] based chip, which is really quite a different bread than the Bulldozer or Zen micro architectures. (It's closer to what you'd find in a netbook than in a high end machine, minus the custom memory cache/controller setup AMD designed for Microsoft.) While it's possible they'd switch micro-architectures, if history is any indication, I suspect it's more likely what you'll see is a die-shrink (28nm -> 14nm) combined with higher clock speeds. And hopefully a faster memory controller (I think that's more the bottleneck than raw CPU power). But that's entirely my speculation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_(microarchitecture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_(microarchitecture)
- shrewduser 10y agoNo. The architecture is too different.
- muxr 10y agoYes, Scorpio might possibly include Zen cores. AMD has on multiple occasions stated that one of their design goals has been to design a core than can scale from ultra power efficient embedded applications all the way to high performance. I think their motivation is to consolidate all their efforts into one core. Now I don't think they will be able to fit 8 zen cores into a Xbox SoC especially since the Vega GPU also have to fit in there, but quad core with 4 logical cores would still probably be better than the existing Puma cores.
- gbraad 10y agoArs Technica article: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/amd-zen-performance-details-release-date/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/amd-zen-performance-d...
- n0b0dythere 10y agoI wasn't expecting it to compete with the higher level I7, or ANY I7. hopefully this puts AMD into a position to capture the enthusiast PC market, which Intel has been stagnating on for generations now. Even the new 7700k there's almost no performance bump from the 6700k, which isn't all that great itself from the upper end I7s from previous generations.
- shmerl 10y agoWhat about Vega? When is it going to be released?
- pragmar 10y agoI want to believe, I really do. Intel can't offer a compelling reason to upgrade my 5 year old 3930k--there's no question that the desktop market has stagnated in the face of a weakened AMD. Can anyone enlighten me as to what video encoding and 3d benchmarks might omit that a more well-rounded passmark score would not?
- stolk 10y agoDoes it have AVX512 support? Or at least AVX2?
- keldaris 10y agoThey claim AVX2 support, yes. No AVX512, but even Xeons don't have that yet (sadly).
- free652 10y agoMore competition is good, though I dont have many hopes now. I switched to Intel starting with "Cores". I don't see myself upgrading my 4690k anytime soon, but I hope but the time I need, AMD would have some nice offerings.
- keldaris 10y agoThis being HN, I'm hoping someone more competent than me in the area of CPU architectures can comment, but as a scientific programmer some of the details lead me to adopt a very cautious attitude for now, especially given the 95W TDP. Given the architecture, producing a performance-competitive 8C/16T chip at 68% of Intel's TDP (95W vs 140W) seems very dubious. Most of the things they're touting in the slides amount to little more than finally catching up to Intel (SMT, branch prediction (minus the neural network thing), cache bandwidth, etc.). Also, some of the areas where they seem to exceed current Intel architectures may turn out to be a mixed blessing. For instance, I'm not sure if doubling L2 caches (512kb/core vs 256kb in Intel CPUs) is a great idea given bandwidth limitations and associativity effects. We also don't know the amount of vector registers these CPUs will have, which will greatly influence the performance of optimal CPU-bound code. Can anyone with more experience comment on the low level details they've released, particularly the issues per cycle and cache architecture figures?
- wmf 10y agoReal World Tech is more of the place to discuss microarchitecture.
- ronnybrendel2 10y agoZen will have 2x128bit vector units. That should result in roughly half the FLOPS for the same core count. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10591/amd-zen-microarchiture-part-2-extracting-instructionlevel-parallelism/2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/10591/amd-zen-microarchiture-p... (slide 2 on this page)
- Tuna-Fish 10y agoThe advantages I see over Intel are: 1. Wider retire (probably only when executing two threads) 2. 32B fetch from icache. 3. Wider issue when executing from uop cache. 4. Larger icache 5. Larger L2 cache helps hit rate. 6. Larger schedulers, leading to larger practical instruction window 7. Split FP/Int pipelines, meaning more execution resources and instruction window in mixed code. Mixed: 6. Very different branch prediction. AMD has used perceptron predictors before, the talk about AI-driven CPU is just better marketing on this. Perceptrons work much better on some loads, worse on others. What has been released about their newest seems to point to some kind of mitigation of the worst cases of their predictors. Could be great, could be a letdown. 7. Narrower FPU and load-store. This obviously hurts on wide AVX loads, but the adoption of wide AVX so far has been terrible. Narrower FPU gets them shorter distances on chip, leading to higher clocks. Disadvantages: 8. Their split integer schedulers can have bubbles caused by their inability to move instructions between lanes after dispatch. Part of their prediction talk seems to be focused on mitigating this, but it's still something that Intel CPUs just don't have to worry about. 9. Less AGUs. On any code without rmw ops, they probably can't maintain full memory throughput. 10. Larger L2 cache probably hurts L2 latency. Current Intel CPUs are in effect designed for 4uop/clock throughput, with both the frontend and the retire limiting them to that over long term. Especially when both threads are running mixed code, this one appears to have a higher peak throughput. How often it can hit that peak is another question -- if I had to make a quess, I'd say that Zen runs highly optimized code better, but the lower latencies of the modern Intel CPU makes them better at worse-optimized code.
- yakult 10y agoIt's all wasted ink and pointless flapping of gums until a tech magazine gets their hands on a production model with a set in stone RRP, and does third-party benchmarks. You can't eyeball the actual performance from the marketing material, and neither can anandtech.
- revanx_ 10y agoWill the new Zen include the AMD Platform Security Processor (PSP)? (To those asking, PSP is the equivalent of the Intel Management Engine).
- geezerjay 10y agoSupport for multi-processor systems would be very awesome.
- mSparks 10y agoyou've seriously never heard of pcmark or passmark? noob alert :p