FEATURED AMD ZEN Discussion (Previous Rumor Thread)

[mackerel]

My take on that article is that the SLI/crossfire problems might only start if you go above two GPUs, which isn't exactly a big thing so I don't think is too critical.

The ram, it just sounds like they need a bit more time to refine it. In the early Skylake days, there were fast and frequent bios releases mostly saying "improve ram compatibility" for a long time. Zen's motherboards would likely go through a similar process for higher speed ram. I've tended to find once the speed goes to around 3000 or so, module and mobo compatibility is never as simple as it should be. The thought of having 8 fast overclocked cores and slow dual channel ram makes me sad.

Mobo pricing, while it is new I can understand mobo manufacturers trying to claw what they can. The cheaper than Intel talk was usually based on the assumption the Zen mobos were simpler than Intel counterparts, thus could be made cheaper.

CPU pricing wise, I'd hope for more of a spread than EarthDog's guess. I'm thinking the high end would be higher, and low end lower, with more models filling out the space. For overclockers, the lower in each configuration, the better...

 

[EarthDog]

If they can release faster chips every two years would be nice. Will 500$ price point make it 3 years?

Not sure... my crystal ball is cloudy for Ryzen now, nonetheless in three years. Best case this catches Intel resting on their laurels and next gen it's hardcore price wars.

 

[DaveB]

Realistically, anything under $500 for the 8c/16t CPU is a win if its Haswell+ IPC peformance and close clocks. Even if its a few % slower IPC, its still in the ballpark and still well under cutting the Intel comp.

A 5930k (6c12t) is still over $600. Wanting to pay more than $100 less for two extra cores seems a bit greedy, but then I don't know how much of Intel's price points is just their current lack of competition.

Since Ryzen has 24 PCI-e lanes, I think it's more comparable to the i7 5820K (6c/12t) with 28 PCI-e lanes which Microcenter has sold for under $300 and is still selling today for $320. Remember, the i7 5930K everyone wants to compare it to paired with the X99 platform has 40 PCI-e lanes. So, IMO, the 6c/12t should sell for considerably under $500.

 

[EarthDog]

Everyone seems to be comparing it to the $1000 octo core 6900K...since it has the same amount of cores/threads. Can't say I'd compare and class cpus by their pcie lane count........that's silly.


We agree the 6c/12t part should be less... I mistyped my original guess. 2nd processor should be 6c/12t for $250-350..

 

[Vishera]

If they can release faster chips every two years would be nice. Will 500$ price point make it 3 years?

AMD has stated it will be no earlier than 2020 that they start thinking about new CPUs after Ryzen.

Speaking of pricing ranges, are they not doing a 6 core CPU? It seems like they'd have a 6 core in there somewhere, even if it bumps the 8 core price up a bit.

 

[DaveB]

Everyone seems to be comparing it to the $1000 octo core 6900K...since it has the same amount of cores/threads. Can't say I'd compare and class cpus by their pcie lane count........that's silly.


We agree the 6c/12t part should be less... I mistyped my original guess. 2nd processor should be 6c/12t for $250-350..

Hope you're right because that's the one I would be interested in.

But the PCI-e count comparison isn't silly, it's that low 24 count that restricts the Ryzen 8c/16t variant from competing in the workstation market, exactly where the released benchmarks show it is so competitive. Which is why earlier I was asking about AMD making X99 class motherboards for it. Home mainstream users do not need 8c/16t systems right now, and this forum has been very consistent recommending against 6c/12t Intel setups for gamers, at least until Ryzen came out. Then suddenly an 8c/16 thread Ryzen became a reasonable choice.

 

[bassnut]

Here are a couple new rumors / tidbits .....

Aside from the upcoming octacore, AMD will also be bringing out a quad-core Ryzen processor, which the company has reportedly begun sampling this week.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...ve-begun-sampling-quad-core-ryzen-processors/

The guys over at the French based Canard PC certainly have been a root for information lately when it comes to AMD Ryzen procs. After the initial benchmark and specs info they released they now claim that AMD is sampling 4-core Ryzen parts to partners.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-starts-sampling-4-core-ryzen-processors.html

 

[ShrimpBrime]

AMD has stated it will be no earlier than 2020 that they start thinking about new CPUs after Ryzen.

My crystal ball predicts that a cpu 3 years old with no revisions will have a very much lower price point by 2020. 500$ to the sukers today and sub 200$ by 2020 for the same cpu.

 

[petteyg359]

My crystal ball predicts that a cpu 3 years old with no revisions will have a very much lower price point by 2020. 500$ to the sukers today and sub 200$ by 2020 for the same cpu.

Exactly how much performance gain did Intel get out of their latest revision? Looks like the physical processes might have hit a brick wall for a while. No sense in wasting limited cash on new old stuff.

 

[Bluefalcon13]

I don't think they said no revisions... They said no new architecture, or am I mis-reading that?

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I don't think they said no revisions... They said no new architecture, or am I mis-reading that?

A revision is a stepping change. Which we may likely see. New architecture is a ground up build.

If they waited till 2020 it wouldn't matter.

Pricing high on a CPU that might keep up with a 5 or 6 series Intel chip is not the way to go as Intel progresses far faster..

Who here thinks Intel couldn't build a 16 thread desktop chip that would completely clobber the ZEN?

Keeping up (not beating or faster...) with Intel's already dated processors does AMD no favors.

 

[petteyg359]

Who here thinks Intel couldn't build a 16 thread desktop chip that would completely clobber eclipse by ten times the price of ZEN?

Like I said earlier, I don't know how much it really costs to manufacture a CPU, but Intel sure as heck doesn't do anybody any favors with pricing if you want high core count.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

High core count doesn't make up for poor behind times IPC. This statement holds more meaning if they where to delay say another 6 months. Just saying "shrugs"

 

[Vishera]

Generationally behind? If you simply go by the name AMD is putting in the comparison yes. Performance wise we all know Intel hasn't improved generation to generation by more than 5-10% since the jump from Ivy to Haswell. And from what I hear, Ivy wasn't that great either over Sandy. Oh no, they might be 10-15% better than AMD but still have their self righteous Intel tax!

 

[EarthDog]

Hope you're right because that's the one I would be interested in.

But the PCI-e count comparison isn't silly, it's that low 24 count that restricts the Ryzen 8c/16t variant from competing in the workstation market, exactly where the released benchmarks show it is so competitive. Which is why earlier I was asking about AMD making X99 class motherboards for it. Home mainstream users do not need 8c/16t systems right now, and this forum has been very consistent recommending against 6c/12t Intel setups for gamers, at least until Ryzen came out. Then suddenly an 8c/16 thread Ryzen became a reasonable choice.

How many does intel mainstream have? This isn't an HEDT processor so I don't expect more than what we already see on Z270. It's going to limit an 'extreme' amd rig with multiple gpus and m.2, but, really, there aren't many doing that these days. Not even in workstations. I don't see a worry, specifically how we see SLI/CFX being treated these days (no love).

Another consideration is we do t know how amd is going to break down the lanes. Some m.2 can disable SATA lanes nkt pcie (and be slower of course). Point is, we aren't sure and there are few people that would run I to to his issue, workstation or not.

I don't think they said no revisions... They said no new architecture, or am I mis-reading that?

Last I recall what we were told face to face, it's the SOCKET.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

500$ to the sukers today and sub 200$ by 2020 for the same cpu.

That sounds like what Intel did with the 65 nm Core 2 Quad...

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Maybe a quad ZEN with SMT will be plenty. But I don't know how much IPC is taken from main threads to run this. May see a performance hit running games exceeding the need of 4 cores.

Haswell games very well. Haven't needed more than 4 cores yet. ZEN needs to beat at least this for my interest to spend more than 250$ on anything offered.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Maybe a quad ZEN with SMT will be plenty.

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

 

[Alaric]

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

Or 2017 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117559

 

[Vishera]

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.