FEATURED AMD ZEN Discussion (Previous Rumor Thread)

Vishera said:

Let's assume the worst and say Ryzen is only comparable at best to Brodwell or Haswell. On the likely chance that Intel is still the more expensive option, would you guys really care that much about a 10-15% performance difference? Especially if AMD is able to be a decent amount cheaper, say, $100, $150? Apples to apples as far as core and thread count, so the 8 core against a 5960X/6900k, 4 cores/ 8 threads against an i7, and a possible 4c/4t against an i5/i3.

Click to expand...

My working theory is that AMD presented the best case scenario, so AT BEST it is comparable to Haswell IPC. In other uses cases, I'm assuming it could be worse. Even assuming the performance was equal to Intel, I'd expect AMD to be somewhat cheaper if they have any hopes of shifting significant units. If they end up much cheaper, it would be a sign of worse than expected performance. Note I'd say this would only hold up against 115x CPUs. It is more complicated against 2011-3 ones, where the platform differences become more significant also, so there they will probably be lower priced than pure CPU performance might indicate.

An interesting quote from another forum:

"I think that AMD keeps the whole system in mind whereas Intel only thinks about the CPU. AMD designs CPU's AND GPU's, so that you can get the best possible experience. Pair Ryzen with a 1050, 1050 ti, or 1060, then pair it with an RX 460, 470, or 480. I'd put money on there being a difference in AMD's favor. Intel and nVidia don't have that advantage, they don't get developed that closely together."

And I think he's right. If you pair an AMD card with an AMD CPU, I'd say that's probably the best way to get every last drop out of your system. I believe they specially design their cards and chips to go together. Sure, you can slap any old GPU in an AM4 motherboard. But the best one to use is one from Polaris or Vega.

That would be an interesting test, although my gut feeling is there wont be a significant advantage to AMD on AMD. Each part has to be standards based, and will use largely the same functions. The only way to get much of an advantage is if you can do something in some combinations you can't with others, and I don't believe AMD has anything like that.

The test would be something along the lines of:
a, AMD CPU + AMD GPU
b, Intel CPU + AMD GPU
c, AMD CPU + NVIDIA GPU
d, Intel CPU + NVIDIA GPU

The same GPU(s) would be used with each processor and ideally both CPU and GPU would be in a similar class, balanced to show more difference with CPU. Obviously each combination would have its own performance. If the claim that AMD+AMD is better, I think it would be a tricky relative comparison. Use c+d as the baseline condition. They will vary between them according to the exact CPU. If you then compare a+b, would a be relatively better than b, more so than c is to d?

If I feel particularly bored I might try this after Zen hits, although I wasn't planning on getting Polaris, and Vega is probably still some way off.

Amd has that one feature for their GPUs, I think someone called it "fine wine" because it's similar to how wine is better with age. A 7970 today will perform better than a 680, even though the 680 handily beat the 7970 at launch. It's in a video by OzTalksHW, he quotes different articles with benchmarking. I'll have to pull the video up and get the article links when I get home.

He claims that this is because AMD has been planning their GPU's with future technologies in mind. DX12 favors AMD GPU's because of this. So if AMD were able to predict these technologies would be the future and utilize them before their time with GPUs, who's to say they aren't taking the same risk with Ryzen? And, who's to say there isn't some way to interconnect the two more favorably than if you mixed brands?

EDIT: The 7970 was 11% slower than the 680 in 2013, yet 13% faster in 2014, and 21% faster in 2015. In DX11, no less. Likewise, the 290X was 8% slower than the 780 ti in 2013, but was 8% FASTER in 2014, simply matched in titles released in early and mid 2015, and in the holiday season of 2015 titles were found to run 14% faster on AMD cards. The RX series has become 10% faster on average through driver updates since June. Now imagine what these numbers will look like when a CPU architecture from AMD that has been in development while they observe these numbers is thrown into the mix.

7970 vs 680: http://www.babeltechreviews.com/hd-7970-vs-gtx-680-2013-revisited/

290x vs 780 ti: http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/

RX 480 vs 1060 updated review from HardwareCanucks: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html

I would think AMD's driver optimization would be the main factor in their card's performance increasing over time. The RX 480 would be a good recent example of that.

Alaric said:

I would think AMD's driver optimization would be the main factor in their card's performance increasing over time. The RX 480 would be a good recent example of that.

Click to expand...

But there still has to be a base within the architecture for them to work with.

If I were to do the test, I would use the latest drivers at the time. Still, my feeling is that if they improve GPU performance through driver optimisation, it would be more on the GPU than a CPU specific feature. That is, I'd predict you see the same gains regardless if it were an Intel or AMD CPU used.

The funny thing here is, I'm planning on getting a Ryzen system to bench. I do want to get an AMD GPU to go with it for a #betterred box. Do I believe it would have a special advantage over putting in a green GPU? No.

What I got from that is old architecture, continued development of the platform, benefits from years of driver refinement. The hardware wasn't able to be fully utilized by the software folks. AMD is famous (notorious?) for that. By the time 64 bit systems were gaining a foothold Intel was back in the game with their CPUs, when games started to utilize more than 4 cores FX was behind in IPC. It looks like this time AMD was ahead of the curve in hardware and it actually paid off-for consumers. They aren't making any money on better running R9 280s this year. It does make the RX 480 look like a better choice in the long term than a GTX 1060, for example, and recent gains bear that out. I don't know that the gaming market spends a lot of time looking at where their card will be in 3 years, though.

Vishera said:

But there still has to be a base within the architecture for them to work with.

Click to expand...

ehh, about 330 in he specifically says driver optimizations. I'm mean it's true you need an architecture to work on, but, it was clear software optimizations that improved over time, nkt the hardware.

Fine wine is some bologna term some AMD users came up wirh. It's not a feature. It's just something that happens with software refinement and new APIs...if you are AMD.

It almost makes me want to check it out... almost. I still have a 280X. If I had the time spare, it could be interesting to see how benchmarks change with driver version from its launch through to present, and something similar from team green over the same period.

RJARRRPCGP said:

Likely more than good enough for gaming... But charging near $300 for a quad core for SMT is like we're stuck in 2012!

Click to expand...

You don't even know that's what they'll charge.

Mr.Scott said:

You don't even know that's what they'll charge.

Click to expand...

Qft. This requires more than just hitting thanks.

ATMINSIDE said:

Qft. This requires more than just hitting thanks.

Click to expand...

No it didn't.
Smart people can separate fact from speculation.
There are a lot of AMD haters out there I see. That's fine. Keep on paying Intel prices to keep your fanboi status up. Smart people will keep open minds.

Mr.Scott said:

No it didn't.
Smart people can separate fact from speculation.
There are a lot of AMD haters out there I see. That's fine. Keep on paying Intel prices to keep your fanboi status up. Smart people will keep open minds.

Click to expand...

I'm with you there, I want AMD to give people a good current gen solution and real competition.
Also, that wasn't even speculation by him, it was an asinine comment.

ATMINSIDE said:

I'm with you there, I want AMD to give people a good current gen solution and real competition.
Also, that wasn't even speculation by him, it was an asinine comment.

Click to expand...

So what else is new?

Mr.Scott said:

So what else is new?

Click to expand...

Trudat

Mr.Scott said:

No it didn't.
Smart people can separate fact from speculation.
There are a lot of AMD haters out there I see. That's fine. Keep on paying Intel prices to keep your fanboi status up. Smart people will keep open minds.

Click to expand...

I've never had a good AMD CPU, Intel has always been better in my experiences, and even I would be willing to try Ryzen. Albeit one of the cheaper options, although that's more to do with the fact that I only use 4 cores than skepticism, heck I probably wouldn't fully take advantage of the hyperthreaded quad core.

Speaking of which, besides the APU's, does anyone know if the weakened athlon chips will be continued into the AM4 platform? Or has there not been word on that yet?

Vishera said:

Intel has always been better in my experiences,

Click to expand...

So you've never had a P4 netburst then?

Nope, I had an eMachines with a Celeron D 330 for my own computer from 2004 until 2012. But I had been tinkering with computers since before then. My mother's cousin in law was an IT guy and always had a new toy for me to bench and mess with. Interestingly enough I never saw a P4 in his collection...

EDIT; Thought I should clarify it was before 2012 that I meant. Started around 2009.

Vishera said:

Nope, I had an eMachines with a Celeron D 330 for my own computer from 2004 until 2012. But I had been tinkering with computers since before then. My mother's cousin in law was an IT guy and always had a new toy for me to bench and mess with. Interestingly enough I never saw a P4 in his collection...

Click to expand...

Yeah...that's P4 netburst bro. One of the worst architectures there ever was. AMD back then, was like Intel now, just so you know.