9 ms·

Anandtech 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.anandte

Anandtech 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 ago
95W? 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    They 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 ago
      What? 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 ago
        I 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.
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    >> roughly equal to a i7-6900k when both are at base clocks It's worth mentioning that the i7-6900K has a TDP of 140W [1] I have to admit when I first saw 95W I wasn't impressed because I didn't realize how high the TDP of the 6900K was. [1] https://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz https://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Pro...
- mtgx 10y ago
  You're thinking the old AMD architecture, which was quite different from that of Intel, and it sucked. The new Zen architecture is much more similar to that of Intel. It's possible third party reviews will show its performance to be a little less than what AMD is showing now, but it won't be anywhere near comparable to the old AMD CPUs (it will be much better and much more competitive to Intel CPUs).
  - walrus01 10y ago
    > You're thinking the old AMD architecture, which was quite different from that of Intel, and it sucked. The new architecture is much better I've been hearing that for the last eight years and it has never been proven to be true, in real world benchmarks and $$$/performance by the time equivalently priced tiers of competing varying $125, $195, $250 and $350 CPUs are available for purchase.
    - Tuna-Fish 10y ago
      If you have been hearing that for the last eight years, you have been listening to some very questionable sources. CPU architectures take very long to replace, and all the AMD CPUs on the market currently are based on the BD core or it's derivatives. BD was released in 2011, and was very different from Intel CPUs. We don't know yet whether Zen is as good as Intel CPUs, but the statement "You're thinking the old AMD architecture, which was quite different from that of Intel, and it sucked. The new Zen architecture is much more similar to that of Intel." Is absolutely correct, and is something that was not correct about any AMD CPU released in the past 8 years.
      - mSparks 10y ago
        hmmm. I used to only buy AMD. Im not exactly sure where they are up to now (probably about 8 years if not more since I touched them) but i definately remember the bulldozer hype and subsequent flop. lies about the number of cores and other things that just made me say "my computing is to important to my life to play that game". I was also privy over the years to some test builds of machines including head to head amd vs intel. it is truly painful to say that not only were they often more expensive (new) for the performance, they were also horribly unreliable, pausing, and doing all sorts of stuff that made us sad. hope thats changed, but saying there is any similarity between the current in use intel vs amd range is very far from the mark.
- mrb 10y ago
  "Given AMD's recent poor track record in terms of $$$/performance for desktop CPUs..." Are you kidding or did you mistype? Current AMD processors don't generally compare favorably to Intel with respect to some metrics, like absolute performance per core or performance per Watt. However if there is any metric where they match or surpass Intel, it's actually perf/$. The reason is simple: perf/$ is the only metric where AMD has some control: they can decide to lower and lower their price down to wherever they need to be. If AMD wasn't competitive on at least perf/$ they would be in a much worse situation. Here is one example I witnessed first hand recently when doing some video work: a good old $100 3.2 GHz 8-core Phenom matches or surpasses most ~$200 Intel processors when encoding MPEG2 files to H.264 with the Linux x264 encoder.
  - walrus01 10y ago
    Even there, they're not currently competitive if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. I would dearly wish that were not the case, because more competition is better for the buyer...
    - VintageCool 10y ago
      I have never spent that much on a CPU. I always buy CPUs in the $60-$80 range.
      - majewsky 10y ago
        I think the CPU on my 2015 home server cost even less (€40-€50). I went with an AMD Athlon because Celerons (which are about the same price) didn't support AES-NI, which I need for reading from my encrypted disks.
    - geezerjay 10y ago
      > if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. This is bullshit through and through. Between $100 and $150, you get any of AMD's FX 6xxx and 8xxx line. We're talking about 6 and 8-core processors whose performance are, in the very least, comparable with some of Intel's i5 and i7 offerings. And Intel's comparable offerings cost over twice what AMD's processors sel for.
dang 10y ago
Ok, we switched to that from https://hardwaresfera.com/amd-ryzen-primer-procesador-amd-zen/ https://hardwaresfera.com/amd-ryzen-primer-procesador-amd-ze....

walrus01 10y ago

95W? 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 ago
If 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 ago
  They 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 ago
    What? 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 ago
      I 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.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  >> roughly equal to a i7-6900k when both are at base clocks It's worth mentioning that the i7-6900K has a TDP of 140W [1] I have to admit when I first saw 95W I wasn't impressed because I didn't realize how high the TDP of the 6900K was. [1] https://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz https://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Pro...
mtgx 10y ago
You're thinking the old AMD architecture, which was quite different from that of Intel, and it sucked. The new Zen architecture is much more similar to that of Intel. It's possible third party reviews will show its performance to be a little less than what AMD is showing now, but it won't be anywhere near comparable to the old AMD CPUs (it will be much better and much more competitive to Intel CPUs).
- walrus01 10y ago
  > You're thinking the old AMD architecture, which was quite different from that of Intel, and it sucked. The new architecture is much better I've been hearing that for the last eight years and it has never been proven to be true, in real world benchmarks and $$$/performance by the time equivalently priced tiers of competing varying $125, $195, $250 and $350 CPUs are available for purchase.
  - Tuna-Fish 10y ago
    If you have been hearing that for the last eight years, you have been listening to some very questionable sources. CPU architectures take very long to replace, and all the AMD CPUs on the market currently are based on the BD core or it's derivatives. BD was released in 2011, and was very different from Intel CPUs. We don't know yet whether Zen is as good as Intel CPUs, but the statement "You're thinking the old AMD architecture, which was quite different from that of Intel, and it sucked. The new Zen architecture is much more similar to that of Intel." Is absolutely correct, and is something that was not correct about any AMD CPU released in the past 8 years.
    - mSparks 10y ago
      hmmm. I used to only buy AMD. Im not exactly sure where they are up to now (probably about 8 years if not more since I touched them) but i definately remember the bulldozer hype and subsequent flop. lies about the number of cores and other things that just made me say "my computing is to important to my life to play that game". I was also privy over the years to some test builds of machines including head to head amd vs intel. it is truly painful to say that not only were they often more expensive (new) for the performance, they were also horribly unreliable, pausing, and doing all sorts of stuff that made us sad. hope thats changed, but saying there is any similarity between the current in use intel vs amd range is very far from the mark.
mrb 10y ago
"Given AMD's recent poor track record in terms of $$$/performance for desktop CPUs..." Are you kidding or did you mistype? Current AMD processors don't generally compare favorably to Intel with respect to some metrics, like absolute performance per core or performance per Watt. However if there is any metric where they match or surpass Intel, it's actually perf/$. The reason is simple: perf/$ is the only metric where AMD has some control: they can decide to lower and lower their price down to wherever they need to be. If AMD wasn't competitive on at least perf/$ they would be in a much worse situation. Here is one example I witnessed first hand recently when doing some video work: a good old $100 3.2 GHz 8-core Phenom matches or surpasses most ~$200 Intel processors when encoding MPEG2 files to H.264 with the Linux x264 encoder.
- walrus01 10y ago
  Even there, they're not currently competitive if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. I would dearly wish that were not the case, because more competition is better for the buyer...
  - VintageCool 10y ago
    I have never spent that much on a CPU. I always buy CPUs in the $60-$80 range.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      I think the CPU on my 2015 home server cost even less (€40-€50). I went with an AMD Athlon because Celerons (which are about the same price) didn't support AES-NI, which I need for reading from my encrypted disks.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. This is bullshit through and through. Between $100 and $150, you get any of AMD's FX 6xxx and 8xxx line. We're talking about 6 and 8-core processors whose performance are, in the very least, comparable with some of Intel's i5 and i7 offerings. And Intel's comparable offerings cost over twice what AMD's processors sel for.

dang 10y ago

Ok, we switched to that from https://hardwaresfera.com/amd-ryzen-primer-procesador-amd-zen/ https://hardwaresfera.com/amd-ryzen-primer-procesador-amd-ze....