AMD AMA Points To Nearing GlobalFoundries 14 nm FinFET Polaris GPU

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
AMD has been releasing some quality APUs over the past 2 years. No longer are they releasing product just for the sake of releasing product. If AMD just moved their newest mainstream APUs and AM1 based APUs to a 14nm process, that in itself would be a very compelling product even without a new CPU core.

I think the biggest risk ahead for next gen products is the GF 14nm process and not anything that has to do with AMD itself.
 


That is very true. They at least need to try and get up to Core i5 performance to do that though, otherwise are limited to a fairly small portion of the market and are still going to have problems.
 
I love when people say just up to core i5 performance. You don't get much of a jump going from a core i5 to a 7. I know, I own both. That is a very tall order.
 


I agree. The sad thing is AMD's best CPU in years has been the X4-860K. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily but if they want to get serious about competing with Intel they need to step up their game in the mid range - high end department. I think just the fact that they're finally ditching AM3 is interesting in and of itself. I'll be due for a CPU upgrade next year and if the 14nm processors are anything worth buying over the Intel equivalent I'll definitely give it a shot.
 
i am actually more interested in their Zen APU's. will they be able to crossfire with their polaris GPU's for additional speed bonus? that would be a real kick in intel and nvidia's balls. and if the zen apu can function as fast as haswell, it would be a hit.
 


You really think an APU would be able to compete with an i7-6800K? Think about the target market for APUs and then get back to me.
 
If AMD can deliver with some truly compelling and competitive products, they need to find some money for advertising. This has been a huge issue for them for a LONG time. If you say something about Intel to someone, they will instantly know what you are talking about. You say AMD and you either get a blank stare or the attitude that they are a cheap Intel knock-off.

Their GPU's are pretty good and are competitive, but I really hope that they can contain the marketing department and not over-promise, like they have so many times before. I understand the need to hype a product, but they go too far, and the products, even if good, can't live up to the hype.
 


I do see Intel commercials every so often on TV. I think I was one yesterday where some dinosaur was chasing some guy with his HP laptop, and then they threw in the 3-second Intel clip at the end.
 


You really think an APU would be able to compete with an i7-6800K? Think about the target market for APUs and then get back to me.
Click to expand...
i said haswell, not skylake. and haswell has a range of CPU's, so yes, it's possible. and it's geared towards smaller systems and budget gamers, as they oft show the capabilities of their integrated graphics when it comes to video games.
 


Where I live in SoCal, I see an Intel commercial just about daily, the ones with Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory". Intel really have made themselves a household name and AMD needs to get themselves out there...

I know their money is insanely tight, but they really need to get themselves out there as something other than an Intel knock-off.
 


all amd needs to do is to be close, thanks to cern we know some more about the cpus, 16 core is what they will make on a single cpu, they will put 2 cpus together to get to 32 cores, and without the gpu portion, they could sell an 8 core at the same cost as an i5/i7 or even undercut it significantly and still pull in more profit than they do now. i also remember a slide where they stopped saying up to but stated more than 40% gain, but as i cant find that off hand im taking it as rumor.

single core performance, from a gaming perspective, amd's current lineup of gpus are good enough to push 60fps, and when the game engine is optimized, close to 120hrz, and that's 2-3 gens of performance improvements behind what the zen is saying its 40% better then.

multicore, 8 real cores with 16 threads... damn do i want that right now, just for the sake of overhead and being able to do more then one thing at once and not maxing a cpu... i'm on a phenom II 955 and i'm waiting on zen, they will either crush intel in the price department, or price themselves where their performance is at in relation to intel... i'm hoping that the 8core that is replacing the 8350 sku remains in that 8350 price range (launch price) as that along gets me to buy amd, if they price it where performance is at... i may end up waiting for intel's response for the price drop.
 


If you really have both, you clearly don't press them very hard or you would notice that Core i7 is significantly faster. If there wasn't much performance to be gained moving from Core i5 to Core i7, then why do benchmarks of the CPUs repeatedly show the Core i7 is faster? Because it is considerably faster. That isn't debatable, it is a fact.

And AMD really does need to jump up to Core i5 performance. When it initially launched Bulldozer, the FX 8150 it was reasonably competitive against Sandy Bridge Core i5 processors, and the updated Piledriver based FX 8350 was reasonably competitive against Ivy Bridge Core i5 CPUs. It was viewed as slower by most, because in a number of instances it was, but the multi-threaded performance made it a better option for some. With Haswell IPC didn't increase much, but stock clock speeds did and prices dropped a bit, so AMD's marketshare continued to decline.

If Zen is just able to hold AMD at Core i3 or lower performance on the top end SKU, then AMD instantly loses the business of anyone that needs more performance than that. And that is a large portion of the market. It might be able to survive off sales in the $150 and lower market segment, but it isn't going to be pretty, it is doubtful AMD will be able to recover any from it.
 
Zen/Polaris APU's are the really, really big deal.

Much less power means less heat and suitable for laptops. Increased density means much better GPU's are possible.

I also expect next-gen consoles to replace existing APU's with a Zen/Polaris APU.
 
From everything I've seen so far as to expectations and comments from AMD, anyone who is expecting that AMD is going to keep their processor prices at the level they are now is going to be disappointed subject to the following caveats:

If AMD's Zen is as good as everyone is projecting and expecting it to be, then don't expect to be able to buy it for current FX prices. That won't happen. It will be closer to Intel pricing as they'll finally be competing on performance per watt and just straight up performance. Intels incremental IPC has stalled out somewhat, and if Zen indeed is a 40% jump in anything (other than heat... lol) then it -will- be competitive and thus no more discount pricing. Also, due to the decrease in size and the increase in the number of cores per wafer this would really help AMD's financial situation. More cores and finally getting somewhat of a 'fair market price' for their CPUs would help immensely.

That of course is subject to the caveat of the GF 14nm FINFET process having good yields to start and getting better quickly.

If Zen pulls a Bulldozer and falls flat, then you'll see the pricing discount that they're currently having. At that point I would also say that AMD's CPU division is in deep sh*t., and I could see AMD splitting off it's GPU unit as an independent company.

If Polaris has good yields from the process, and the architecture is all it's cracked up to be, we could really see some good stuff from the GPU division. A 14nm FINFET GPU, HBM 2.0 memory and all that comes with it could be quite a game changer. At the very least I can see AMD leapfrogging Nvidia for bragging rights (and rightfully so) as while Maxwell (and the upcoming Pascal) might be a more efficient architecture, a LOT of that can be erased via being on a more power efficient silicon process node. Take a look at what Intel can do vs AMD on a 14nm vs 28nm process (of course, Intel also has the advantage of the more efficient architecture...).

All that being said, AMD has to execute this right - I would daresay their future really depends on it.
 
16 core desktop, I highly doubt we will see anything with that high of a core count, 16+ cores for a server yes, and expect to be paying 400-500 dollars for that 8 core version.
 


Desktop/Server whatever, they will be available undoubtedly. You can use server hardware in a desktop, and vica versa. It really doesn't matter. The point is, the 16-core will be available and should cost a lot. It would be used for any heavily multi-threaded workloads, certainly not for gaming.

I expect the 8-core Zen to be at least $500, maybe more to since the I7=5960X is $1000 and has 8 cores 16 threads. It'll probably cost around $600 TBH.

I don't see Zen being cheap. AMD needs to make money, and they are going to make it competitively priced, but I expect them to be very good quality chips.
 
There are a few things that make this an interesting moment for AMD, and the market knows it... it's stocks have been going up.

Contrary to older CPU's, Zen is a brand new architecture, built from the ground up for what the market is asking for... energy efficiency and performance. They'll no longer be handicapped either by production process (nm) or old architectures that didn't care much for energy efficiency or the myriad of modern resources and interfaces Intel CPU's currently have. If they can bring all this to their advantage they might catch up to Intel, specially because having virtual monopoly Intel's had no real motivation to increase performance more than a little bit... I'm on a i5 2500K and still don't see a reason to upgrade. AMD CPU's have more cores and if they implement proper threading, memory and motherboard support and don't waste time with silly resources like special integration with Windows 10 like Intel they could catch up.

I doubt they'll surpass Intel in general, but they could recover a niche market that is gaming, design and VR. Even if their CPUs are a little less efficient, but more powerful and take better advantage of DirectX 12 and Vulkan, they have a shot at growing again.

On the GPU side thinks are easier to be optimistic about, Polaris will catch up to Nvidia in process, wich might close the efficiency/heat gap we have today, and we'll finally be rid of old arichtecture that's stuck with us for ages. AMD has been very good at keeping on par with NVidia even with outdated resources and limited cash reserves for research. Current cards already best NVidia because of architecture on some aspects, like in DX12 and Vulkan (because of hardware async) and they have the practical experience of working with 3d memory. That said, Nvidia is also closing it's weaknesses in those regards, so AMD better use these advantages to full effect, or they won't withstand the full might of Nvidia's resources.

It would seem that on the GPU front AMD could surpass Nvidia this generation or, at the very least, stay on par (unless Nvidia surprises us thoroughly, but all they're anouncing for Pascal is on par with AMD). On the CPU this could be a return from the brink. It wouldn't bring back the golden days of AMD CPU's but it might be the start of a come back. Here's hoping they're not overhyping it.
 


Desktop/Server whatever, they will be available undoubtedly. You can use server hardware in a desktop, and vica versa. It really doesn't matter. The point is, the 16-core will be available and should cost a lot. It would be used for any heavily multi-threaded workloads, certainly not for gaming.

I expect the 8-core Zen to be at least $500, maybe more to since the I7=5960X is $1000 and has 8 cores 16 threads. It'll probably cost around $600 TBH.

I don't see Zen being cheap. AMD needs to make money, and they are going to make it competitively priced, but I expect them to be very good quality chips.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they would not be usable for desktop, js that you won't see them marketed for desktop.
otherwise I agree "AMD" can't afford to be the "cheap" alternative anymore.
Zen according to the slip of Lisa Su will bring 40%+ improvement in IPC, is only architecture only..
Intel is asleep and AMD has a ninja in training.
 
The good news AMD has had for the last decade is that CPU really doesn't matter for the majority of consumers. So it didn't matter they lost on single threaded performance by 15%. GPUs have which has been a compelling reason not to get an Intel without discreet graphics.
The problem AMD will face regardless of their performance and price is adoption. There are companies who won't use an AMD even if its the better product for them. The vast majority of consumer PCs using integrated graphics would be better powered by an AMD verse an Intel, yet they all use Intel's despite the price and worse graphical performance.
 
I hope that with zen we can start seeing AMD+Nvidia laptops like how there are a few models that have Intel+ AMD, while it is nice for them to get rigs that have APU+GPU combos, it would be nice for people who want to support AMD, but have sold their graphics souls to Nvidia (such as buying the shield).
Intel's businesses practice has been getting less and less likable, but I had to get Nvintel laptop to get performance and battery life out of an affordable laptop.

I would also like to see some graphics capability possibly for use with HSA on the FX processors, similar to how intel markets their top end chips - that is unless FX will now be competing with i7-E systems on Zen. I just don't need 10 rear usb ports, 6-8 is good - put the rest internally, and give me a DVI-I, HDMI and DisplayPort in a neat stack, heck even mini DVI since they plan to phase out older connectors. Digital is nice, but sometimes direct to analog is the best way to troubleshoot
 
AMD has been releasing some quality APUs over the past 2 years. No longer are they releasing product just for the sake of releasing product. If AMD just moved their newest mainstream APUs and AM1 based APUs to a 14nm process, that in itself would be a very compelling product even without a new CPU core.

I think the biggest risk ahead for next gen products is the GF 14nm process and not anything that has to do with AMD itself.
Click to expand...
Their APU's are becoming much less compelling with intel's latest graphics processors, Intel catching up in gpu and still far ahead in cpu. AMD really need to do it right this time with their cpu, not go backwards again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom