4 ms·

From the translations/discussion this sounds like it's a 3.15/3.3 GHz 8C/16t engineering sample (ES7?). Current 8C clocks are up to 3.4/3.8 and the 4c/8t (the 6

by lhl 10y ago

From the translations/discussion this sounds like it's a 3.15/3.3 GHz 8C/16t engineering sample (ES7?). Current 8C clocks are up to 3.4/3.8 and the 4c/8t (the 6700k competitor) is expected to have a 3.8 or 4.0 GHz base. IPC-wise, the Zen chips appear competitive and in line with AMDs claims so personally I don't see this as a bad sign at all.

dogma1138 10y ago
The pictures on the graph show the AMD part to be a 3.33 / 3.4 boost clock one. If they can't push it to beat a 6700K in gaming it won't matter, especially at it's price point, you'll be giving up way too much on the platform itself. ATM it's slower than a 220-230$ Core i5 in games and those get better PCIE performance and native NVME and USB 3.1 support and Thunderbolt which does matter to people. As far as professional applications goes, can't beat a 6900K has only 24 PCIE lanes which means no multi-GPU support if you want to use PCIE based storage and even with a 16/8 GPU setup you are still going to get throttled heavily because USB 3.1, network, sound and every other peripheral is running over PCIE these days (if you have even a single NVME SSD you'll have to lock it to 8/8 or 8/4 which means you can actually bottleneck the GPU somewhat on the X4). Overall no sorry doesn't look good, especially considering that in benchmarks that AMD showed with the 8c/16t part they were beating a 6900K at 3.4ghz it doesn't seem to be the case with this evidence. As far as the IPC part it wasn't really in question at this time, the clocks were and still are, AMD is going to be at very big disadvantage as far as the platform goes ("chipset" if you like) because Intel does PCIE, storage and LAN considerably better than AMD and also has native USB 3.0/3.1 support. AMD needs to be able to provide better clocks than Intel to be really valuable in this, and at least as many PCIE lanes as Intel does; 24 is simply not enough.

by lhl 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

The pictures on the graph show the AMD part to be a 3.33 / 3.4 boost clock one. If they can't push it to beat a 6700K in gaming it won't matter, especially at it's price point, you'll be giving up way too much on the platform itself. ATM it's slower than a 220-230$ Core i5 in games and those get better PCIE performance and native NVME and USB 3.1 support and Thunderbolt which does matter to people. As far as professional applications goes, can't beat a 6900K has only 24 PCIE lanes which means no multi-GPU support if you want to use PCIE based storage and even with a 16/8 GPU setup you are still going to get throttled heavily because USB 3.1, network, sound and every other peripheral is running over PCIE these days (if you have even a single NVME SSD you'll have to lock it to 8/8 or 8/4 which means you can actually bottleneck the GPU somewhat on the X4). Overall no sorry doesn't look good, especially considering that in benchmarks that AMD showed with the 8c/16t part they were beating a 6900K at 3.4ghz it doesn't seem to be the case with this evidence. As far as the IPC part it wasn't really in question at this time, the clocks were and still are, AMD is going to be at very big disadvantage as far as the platform goes ("chipset" if you like) because Intel does PCIE, storage and LAN considerably better than AMD and also has native USB 3.0/3.1 support. AMD needs to be able to provide better clocks than Intel to be really valuable in this, and at least as many PCIE lanes as Intel does; 24 is simply not enough.