- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Location
- Holed up in Branford, CT
I agree. You have people that love something like mathematics. How things work etc.... Then couple that with determination and genius or near genius IQ. Rarely found qualities.
-
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
I agree. You have people that love something like mathematics. How things work etc.... Then couple that with determination and genius or near genius IQ. Rarely found qualities.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
Really does sound like server hardware to me. But that wouldn't stop me from having one.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
Oh.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Location
- Holed up in Branford, CT
As long as it's fast. As far as being a server chip isn't a Xeon nothing but an i7 with the igpu disabled? Maybe a little more L3?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Depends which Xeon you get. Current gen come both with and without iGPU.
Typically (pending board support) it enables ECC support and some high level security features.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Considering that those are based on the (up to) 18-core platform, yes.
My above post was more directed toward the 1150 Xeons.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
Sooooo I don't own one of these new chips because....?
gogogo AMD! thirsty for more power and a new chip we are!
gogogo AMD! thirsty for more power and a new chip we are!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Location
- Holed up in Branford, CT
But performance wise the i7 and Xeon at the same frequency and core count is basically the same?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Location
- Holed up in Branford, CT
If AMD really comes out with some competitive processors I hope they score some major OEM design wins. One thing that we may have to become accustomed to is higher prices. I have no problem paying more if the value is there. We shall see in a year or so.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Exactly the same.
I hope they come out with a seriously good processor if for no reason other than pushing CPU development forward faster.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
Seems to be more info on this now. With any luck they can actually deliver on the 40% performance increase they're claiming. I like the sound of the APU server SOC with inbuilt RAM. I believe that would have some serious performance. Here's to hoping such a thing performs like it promises and makes it to the desktop sooner rather than later.
Anyway, I'll wait for the benchies once its released. My hopes have been dashed too often over the years with AMD now. Heck, my media centre is actually an Intel based system now. Boots far faster than my main/gaming rig and is absolutely silent. It will take something thats actually better than Intel, and priced reasonably to move me back to buying new AMD CPU/mainboards at this point.
http://techreport.com/review/28228/amd-zen-chips-headed-to-desktops-servers-in-2016
Anyway, I'll wait for the benchies once its released. My hopes have been dashed too often over the years with AMD now. Heck, my media centre is actually an Intel based system now. Boots far faster than my main/gaming rig and is absolutely silent. It will take something thats actually better than Intel, and priced reasonably to move me back to buying new AMD CPU/mainboards at this point.
http://techreport.com/review/28228/amd-zen-chips-headed-to-desktops-servers-in-2016
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Location
- Holed up in Branford, CT
"better than Intel" will be a real stretch. AMD just needs to be competitive. If they are competitive they aren't going to give their stuff away like they do now. They should price accordingly.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2015
I'm not so sure..... This is suppose to be AMD's 1st release of a SMT core. IF..if they can hit their ship date, without have any production delays, that would be a plus. I would have to say, that this will probably be like the P4 when it first got SMT. In some cases it was faster with HT on and in others when HT was off. Intel has what...5th or 6th Gen Uarch with SMT knowledge under it's belt. Hopefully AMD will reverse engineer one of Intel's slightly older CPU's for the knowledge, just like Intel reverse engineered AMD's x64 extensions.
I know what you are going to say, so I'll give a little knowledge. Yes Intel had x64 CPU's aka IA-64 (It is called Itanium released in 2001 ) but they where for servers only. Because of the Uarch used, it had to run basic x86 32-code in hardware emulation. This caused a massive performance penalty, the CPU freq was 733 & 800.
"Quoted from an article in The Register"
"As Terje Mathisen points out over on comp.arch, "Running effectively at Pentium 100 speeds means that it averages 4-10 cycles per x86 instruction executed, which as you noted is slow even for a sw emulation."
"And Mathisen points out - in an irony our friends at Transmeta will surely savour - that Crusoe's software emulation of Intel's 32bit instruction set is faster than Intel's hardware emulation... while using less than 5% of the electrical power.
AMD released the Opteron series in 2004 that used a x86-64 Uarch that ran basic x86 32-bit code at native hardware speed,("Quoted from The Inquirer") which Microsoft then supported, forcing Intel to introduce the same extensions in its own x86-based processors.
Thank You For Your Time
In Reading This Post
I know what you are going to say, so I'll give a little knowledge. Yes Intel had x64 CPU's aka IA-64 (It is called Itanium released in 2001 ) but they where for servers only. Because of the Uarch used, it had to run basic x86 32-code in hardware emulation. This caused a massive performance penalty, the CPU freq was 733 & 800.
"Quoted from an article in The Register"
"As Terje Mathisen points out over on comp.arch, "Running effectively at Pentium 100 speeds means that it averages 4-10 cycles per x86 instruction executed, which as you noted is slow even for a sw emulation."
"And Mathisen points out - in an irony our friends at Transmeta will surely savour - that Crusoe's software emulation of Intel's 32bit instruction set is faster than Intel's hardware emulation... while using less than 5% of the electrical power.
AMD released the Opteron series in 2004 that used a x86-64 Uarch that ran basic x86 32-bit code at native hardware speed,("Quoted from The Inquirer") which Microsoft then supported, forcing Intel to introduce the same extensions in its own x86-based processors.
Thank You For Your Time
In Reading This Post
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2015
That is all they need to do.
This is going to beat Intel.....Some of us remember when AMD WAS TOP DOG, and they priced their CPU's as such.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
I want to see AMD retake the crown again. It's been years since they were wearing it.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
AMD would be lucky to return to profit a Billy by just releasing something "As good as Intels". Even if cheaper it won't be enough. They need to out performance Intel at the high end to going through brand recognition they need to charge the prices they need to return to profitabillity.
Intel handle both design and manufacturers of their chips, while also being years ahead of everyone else in chips fabrication. AMD literally have to charge more to make the same profit per chips as Intel. As I previously mentioned, they have to be better, not just equally.
Intel handle both design and manufacturers of their chips, while also being years ahead of everyone else in chips fabrication. AMD literally have to charge more to make the same profit per chips as Intel. As I previously mentioned, they have to be better, not just equally.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2015
I'm referring to when AMD handled both design and manufacturing of their chips. AMD's 1st FX chips were the same or faster than the P4, while running 1 GHz slower. AMD came out with their x2 series and beat the crap out of Intels Dual Core Prescott's. At that time, the pricing of CPU's were reversed, with AMD on TOP and Intel slashing prices just to sell CPU's 
Similar threads
