-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FEATURED AMD ZEN Discussion (Previous Rumor Thread)
- Thread starter Johan45
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
Its a lot simpler than you guys think for the reasoning behind AMD holding back. A) they needed a new architecture which can take ~3-5 years to develop B) They aligned the release with 14nm FinFET. They couldn't do 22nm like Intel because it would have been FX Excavator++. No one on the OEM motherboard side would play along because AMD would have stuck with the AM3+ socket.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
I think most folks are skeptical based on AMD's behavior and slow reaction. I recall both you and I back in '12 had a discussion how stupid it was that they'd attempt a Netburst like uArch. While I am glad to see that Ryzen looks good I still think given its design it will be hobbled by memory bandwidth issues. That could be both good or bad depending on how the multipliers stack up. No doubt tho if I were building a Ryzen setup I'd be spending a lot of time looking at getting the lowest timing RAM I could get my hands on.
That said I think this thing will come alive once DDR5 or HBM is given to it on Zen gen2. This setup just reminds me too much of of S754 and I think will end up much the same way. Has there been any news on when the Ryzen Opterons are going to be released?
As I said before no SFF and no mATX boards worry me; I would really like to see this chip used in a mobile environment assuming the TDP numbers are accurate I guess we'll see soon enough
Alaric
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Location
- Satan's Colon, US
On the lighter side of hoopla...I've seen the premise of this video play out in this thread so many times I couldn't keep it to myself. 
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-leaked/
CB11.5/15 and GeekBench Multi/Single threaded benchmarks
Edit: on the 3 benchmarks, be it single or multi threaded, the 1700 gives roughly (-1% to -5%) the same level of performance than the 6900k for less than one third of it Intel counterpart price... I am sure we will see Intel price dropping soon!
Edit2: and I guess that 1700 OC to the level of overclocked Haswell-E on ambient (4.3 to 4.5GHz). Which would even the results, and maybe give an advantage to the AMD chip!
Edit3: About Intel Turbo boost...
Joking! This 25MHz increment doesn't really makes sense, as it seems that there is base clock overclocking possibility. If so, will the CPU's be binned? Or not? As for the Phenom II: all of them were overclocking in the 4/4.1GHz on ambient cooling, whether there were 945,955,965 or 980's...
CB11.5/15 and GeekBench Multi/Single threaded benchmarks
Edit: on the 3 benchmarks, be it single or multi threaded, the 1700 gives roughly (-1% to -5%) the same level of performance than the 6900k for less than one third of it Intel counterpart price... I am sure we will see Intel price dropping soon!
Edit2: and I guess that 1700 OC to the level of overclocked Haswell-E on ambient (4.3 to 4.5GHz). Which would even the results, and maybe give an advantage to the AMD chip!
Edit3: About Intel Turbo boost...
Joking! This 25MHz increment doesn't really makes sense, as it seems that there is base clock overclocking possibility. If so, will the CPU's be binned? Or not? As for the Phenom II: all of them were overclocking in the 4/4.1GHz on ambient cooling, whether there were 945,955,965 or 980's...
Last edited:
I disagree. Most of the later one's were crapping out around 3.8 on ambient.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Location
- cypress, tx
I never had one not hit 4.2. B97 C3 stepping was the newest chip I had and that was a business class chip 95w locked multi equal of the 955BE
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
Intel Engineer: Sir, we've explored what you've asked us, and it seems there's a little hiccup. Actually, um-
Intel Exec: A hiccup?
Intel Engineer: Sir, our current processors won't have better multi-core performance than Ryzen. The benchmarks are just too good.
Intel Exec: You have the entire Intel R&D budget behind you. Here is the technology. I've asked you to simply make it faster.
Intel Engineer: Okay sir, and that's what we're trying to do, but, honestly, it's impossible.
Intel Exec: JIM KELLER WAS ABLE TO DESIGN THIS AT AMD! WHILE THEY WERE NEARLY BANKRUPT!
Intel Engineer: Well I'm sorry... I'm not Jim Keller.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
let's just go back to T'bred B's and Bartons...
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2015
You get to play 'puter and build a new one? And DDR4? I mean honestly if cost isnt the issue then I just dont see why a reason is needed
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
im not rich but if it actually makes a real difference i can find a way. the idea of 8 cores at 4.5ghz sounds cool but not if they don't do anything. i'm trying to rationalize somehow. i'm thinking i won't feel a difference but i feel like i've seen posts in the past by people with older generations of amd processors that swear the system feels faster than intel even though benchmarks are lower. if amd tech has some kind of multi tasking magic that makes slower cpus feel faster i can only imagine what it's like with all dat horse powa.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Location
- cypress, tx
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
You get to play 'puter and build a new one? And DDR4? I mean honestly if cost isnt the issue then I just dont see why a reason is needed
He's already got DDR4
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, there is no real reason to upgrade, except playing with a new toy
D).BTW, I am sure you can squeeze a couple of hundred extra MHz out of your 5820k: 1.22v is VERY conservative!
No one is even sure they will hit 4.5GHz on ambient. Highest I have seen is 5.2GHz on LN2, and rumpur is they will top around 4.3/4.4GHz, same as Broadwell-E.
Mmm... Slower CPU's that feel faster... I had both Intel and AMD systems (SandyBridge, IvyBridge, Haswell, Haswell-E and Deneb, Thuban, Bulldozer, PIledriver), none of the AMD system felt faster or "snappier" than a Sandy Bridge or newer INtel setup. All CPU's were overclocked to the max possible ambient frequency (4.1 to 4.3GHz for Phemoms, 5GHz for BD/PD and 4.8 to 4.9GHz fpr the INtel CPU's), and all were running SSD's.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2015
This is just about the only reason I can see to stick with your old system (and why Im sticking with mine also). Its tough, but maybe in 4 or 5 years we will be able to afford 1st Gen Ryzen. But in the meantime a guy can dream right?
You were lucky.
Want me to send you a handful of non 4 gig'ers?
Similar threads
