AMD CPUs, SoC Rumors and Speculations Temp. thread 2

[jimmysmitty]

Intel has base 4GHz in its flagship quad-core product. The bulk of the SKUs are still well below that, which is all AMD needs to remain competitive.

Especially the 8+ core parts which are in the 2.4(base)/3.2GHz(turbo) to 3.2(base)/3.6GHz(turbo) range.

If they can hit the 40% IPC gain and get near a 3.5Ghz base they'll be back in the game.

40% across the board or maximum under certain situations?

If it is across the board then sure. If it is only in a few specific situations than maybe not.

And consumer is not where AMD has to worry. The server market is the worst for AMD. That is where they need to focus and the performance disparity between Intel and AMD in the server market is even more noticed than in desktop especially since most of Intels server options are 8 core or more (with more coming out next year) and as we all know servers love more cores and bandwidth.

Even if AMD were able to start competing at bit higher level with Intel in the consumer market it wouldn't help if their server offerings still fall short.

 

[jdwii]

I said 4GHz base frequencies. I am discussing base frequencies, not turbos. My old prediction for Zen already contains ~3.5GHz base frequencies.

A mature process is not the answer, because Intel process will be more mature as well.

The probability that AMD will match Intel in base frequencies with the first product of a new process is very small. Intel is already at 4GHz base with Skylake, by next year they will be able to push farther even on the same process.

AMD could have some more strength if it can get turbo frequencies up to 4GHz at least, not much from a performance perspective, but a marketing one. Remember that the FX 9590 is labeled as the first 5GHz processor, even if on turbo.

But, as cdrkf said, having Haswell-like IPC with 3.5-4.0 GHz could be enough for AMD to be competitive in higher price points than it can now. So they may not reach same frequencies as Intel, but that may be enough to keep them afloat for longer.

I found it a bit odd that their new skylake CPU has 200mhz less turbo(only 4.2ghz) wondering why that is?

 

[cdrkf]

I said 4GHz base frequencies. I am discussing base frequencies, not turbos. My old prediction for Zen already contains ~3.5GHz base frequencies.

A mature process is not the answer, because Intel process will be more mature as well.

The probability that AMD will match Intel in base frequencies with the first product of a new process is very small. Intel is already at 4GHz base with Skylake, by next year they will be able to push farther even on the same process.

AMD could have some more strength if it can get turbo frequencies up to 4GHz at least, not much from a performance perspective, but a marketing one. Remember that the FX 9590 is labeled as the first 5GHz processor, even if on turbo.

But, as cdrkf said, having Haswell-like IPC with 3.5-4.0 GHz could be enough for AMD to be competitive in higher price points than it can now. So they may not reach same frequencies as Intel, but that may be enough to keep them afloat for longer.

I found it a bit odd that their new skylake CPU has 200mhz less turbo(only 4.2ghz) wondering why that is?

Isn't Skylake on a newer process tech to Haswell? Smaller transistors /= to higher frequency I guess.

Edit: I mean we've seen speeds around the 4ghz range since the P4 days.

 

[-Fran-]

Don't forget TDP's in all this.

Those speed increases are not free, even with the process node advantage. Intel bumped the frequencies to justify the generational change, but they did sacrifice some efficiency gains for brute performance. Sandy 95W, Ivy 77W, HW ~85W and now ~95W again.

If AMD plays it's cards correctly, they *might* catch Intel with the guard down in the Mainstream market and Medium Server market. If they do more CPU less APU, then they could close the gap very nicely and get speeds with not a huge TDP penalty. Although, Skylake is a good OC'er like Sandy was.

I wonder where all of this points to... Ah, we need more information XD

Cheers!

 

[jdwii]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

 

[juanrga]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

Zen CPUs will be rated up to 95W.

 

[cdrkf]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

Zen CPUs will be rated up to 95W.

At first at any rate 😛 Knowing AMD they'll probably release an 'enthusiast' eddition at a later date with a higher tdp judging by things like the 140W Phenom II X6 and the FX 9XXX parts.

95w sounds sensible for a mainstream offering though.

 

[juanrga]

Zen CPUs are enthusiast chips and target the FX-9000 series user. Mainstream users will be served by the 7th gen AM4 APUs.

Zen CPU <--> i7 eXtreme CPU
7th gen APU <--> i7/i5/i3 'APU'

 

[de5_Roy]

Zen CPUs are enthusiast chips and target the FX-9000 series user. Mainstream users will be served by the 7th gen AM4 APUs.

Zen CPU <--> i7 eXtreme CPU
7th gen APU <--> i7/i5/i3 'APU'

"enthusiast" doesn't signify a price range or performance range. post those instead.
fx9k users are at core i5 level in terms of price, for instance.

 

[juanrga]

Zen CPUs are enthusiast chips and target the FX-9000 series user. Mainstream users will be served by the 7th gen AM4 APUs.

Zen CPU <--> i7 eXtreme CPU
7th gen APU <--> i7/i5/i3 'APU'

"enthusiast" doesn't signify a price range or performance range. post those instead.
fx9k users are at core i5 level in terms of price, for instance.

The FX-9590 initially did target above the $800 mark. AMD had to severely cut prices because the chips are very uncompetitive.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/189064-amds-last-fx-gasp-5ghz-fx-9590-down-to-230-new-lower-power-8-core-chips-debut

 

[cdrkf]

Yeah agreed, I expect it will work similar with zen. It will start expensive, however prices tend to sort themselves out over time.

 

[jdwii]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

Zen CPUs will be rated up to 95W.

I'd just think it would be in Amd's best interest to target 125 watts since its not a crazy difference and it would possibly allow higher base frequency's .

 

[Cazalan]

PC decline may finally level off next year. Great!

 

[de5_Roy]

Vulkan API's Prototype Gets Performance Numbers: 89% Increase over OpenGL
http://wccftech.com/khronos-vulkan-api-performance-numbers-89-star-dust-benchmark/
/edit

The FX-9590 initially did target above the $800 mark. AMD had to severely cut prices because the chips are very uncompetitive.

yes. it's part of the reason i asked you to post price-equivalents. being uncompetitive (or not) has nothing to do with "enthusiast". if you're gonna stick with that, might as well specify which kind of enthusiast, in terms of pricing and/or user expenditure. you're sidestepping the fact that you made a blanket statement, which is why i asked to specifics.

 

[8350rocks]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

That will just give people reason to scream over power consumption. As if the $0.62/mo. will break the budget for the electricity consumption (based on average US $/kwh).

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

(I realize that it is absurd for people to overclock and complain, but many things people do on the internet are absurd...so take it for what you will...)

 

[de5_Roy]

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

now a days for most people (except for the ignorants) it's less about power consumption and more about power management - that's what really governs efficiency in consumer parts. pd is old - fact. amd didn't implement a lot of optimization in that area when pd came out, intel didn't much either. right now, both intel and amd have extensive power management as well as power saving tech. combo that with the power savings node shrinks are gonna bring in (as long as glo doesn't fail again), TDP arguments will be moot. they're more or less useless right now - TDP really is a guideline for the oems and parts manufacturers. i like referring to TDP because it gives a general idea about power use. at least it used to before haswell and carrizo came out. it's not hopeless though, review sites like toms have ways to measure processor power consumption (still improving) - so we'll still have good sources for info.

your claims about tdp and overclocking contradict each other, as overclocking is pushing a chip beyond it's factory specs, TDP is one of those specs. heat generation and power consumption depend on the elertrical and physical characteristics of the chip itself.

 

[8350rocks]

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

now a days for most people (except for the ignorants) it's less about power consumption and more about power management - that's what really governs efficiency in consumer parts. pd is old - fact. amd didn't implement a lot of optimization in that area when pd came out, intel didn't much either. right now, both intel and amd have extensive power management as well as power saving tech. combo that with the power savings node shrinks are gonna bring in (as long as glo doesn't fail again), TDP arguments will be moot. they're more or less useless right now - TDP really is a guideline for the oems and parts manufacturers. i like referring to TDP because it gives a general idea about power use. at least it used to before haswell and carrizo came out. it's not hopeless though, review sites like toms have ways to measure processor power consumption (still improving) - so we'll still have good sources for info.

your claims about tdp and overclocking contradict each other, as overclocking is pushing a chip beyond it's factory specs, TDP is one of those specs. heat generation and power consumption depend on the elertrical and physical characteristics of the chip itself.

TDP is technically thermal design. Essentially it dictates what the chip should be able to consume/dissipate in terms of thermal limits.

So...sure...you could somewhat equate that to power...though it is not really entirely accurate.

I agree that the overclocking comments are oxymorons...though you see people with 4.7 GHz intel chips talking about how terrible AMD power consumption is...then they show a power consumption benchmark with a stock, non-k series, i5 and talk about the massive gap in power consumption between their PC way overclocked and an AMD PC.

 

[cdrkf]

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

now a days for most people (except for the ignorants) it's less about power consumption and more about power management - that's what really governs efficiency in consumer parts. pd is old - fact. amd didn't implement a lot of optimization in that area when pd came out, intel didn't much either. right now, both intel and amd have extensive power management as well as power saving tech. combo that with the power savings node shrinks are gonna bring in (as long as glo doesn't fail again), TDP arguments will be moot. they're more or less useless right now - TDP really is a guideline for the oems and parts manufacturers. i like referring to TDP because it gives a general idea about power use. at least it used to before haswell and carrizo came out. it's not hopeless though, review sites like toms have ways to measure processor power consumption (still improving) - so we'll still have good sources for info.

your claims about tdp and overclocking contradict each other, as overclocking is pushing a chip beyond it's factory specs, TDP is one of those specs. heat generation and power consumption depend on the elertrical and physical characteristics of the chip itself.

TDP is technically thermal design. Essentially it dictates what the chip should be able to consume/dissipate in terms of thermal limits.

So...sure...you could somewhat equate that to power...though it is not really entirely accurate.

I agree that the overclocking comments are oxymorons...though you see people with 4.7 GHz intel chips talking about how terrible AMD power consumption is...then they show a power consumption benchmark with a stock, non-k series, i5 and talk about the massive gap in power consumption between their PC way overclocked and an AMD PC.

It's true people are not objective at all (I mean look at the arguemnts on teh GPU side, the way people talk you'd think nVidia use 1% the power of AMD for 10x the performance when the difference a lot of the time isn't that much, depending on which gpu's you compare ofc).

What I would say though is on the CPU side, due to the age of PD, there isn't really a good way to show the numbers. You can down clock PD to get equivalent power consumption to a given Intel cpu, but the performance isn't there. Alternatively, you can overclock PD and throw caution to the wind to get performance parity, but then it will consume more power. I think Carrizo looks much better in this reguard when looking at similar TDP intel part so there's that

 

[jdwii]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

That will just give people reason to scream over power consumption. As if the $0.62/mo. will break the budget for the electricity consumption (based on average US $/kwh).

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

(I realize that it is absurd for people to overclock and complain, but many things people do on the internet are absurd...so take it for what you will...)

I'm all for efficiency myself but that little bit isn't that much if it will allow them to be more competitive in performance not to mention most will own their APUs anyways.

 

[cdrkf]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

That will just give people reason to scream over power consumption. As if the $0.62/mo. will break the budget for the electricity consumption (based on average US $/kwh).

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

(I realize that it is absurd for people to overclock and complain, but many things people do on the internet are absurd...so take it for what you will...)

I'm all for efficiency myself but that little bit isn't that much if it will allow them to be more competitive in performance not to mention most will own their APUs anyways.

They usually start with fairly conservative TDP numbers, then push them up a bit when they do a refresh, so Zen version 1 being 95w makes sense with maybe a 125w or even 140w higher performance part coming in a little later.

Edit: Hopefully they'll avoid a 220w monster this time, as that really was a bit much 😛

 

[8350rocks]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

That will just give people reason to scream over power consumption. As if the $0.62/mo. will break the budget for the electricity consumption (based on average US $/kwh).

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

(I realize that it is absurd for people to overclock and complain, but many things people do on the internet are absurd...so take it for what you will...)

I'm all for efficiency myself but that little bit isn't that much if it will allow them to be more competitive in performance not to mention most will own their APUs anyways.

They usually start with fairly conservative TDP numbers, then push them up a bit when they do a refresh, so Zen version 1 being 95w makes sense with maybe a 125w or even 140w higher performance part coming in a little later.

Edit: Hopefully they'll avoid a 220w monster this time, as that really was a bit much 😛

If they did a 220W part that blew the doors off of everything out there by a wide margin...caution would be thrown to the wind and you would see crazy custom cooling configs to keep it chilled while people played with their CPU overclocked to 5.5 and all kinds of stuff....

EDIT: Essentially...if they actually did another TWKR but on the Zen uarch...

 

[juanrga]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

That will just give people reason to scream over power consumption. As if the $0.62/mo. will break the budget for the electricity consumption (based on average US $/kwh).

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

(I realize that it is absurd for people to overclock and complain, but many things people do on the internet are absurd...so take it for what you will...)

They didn't complain about power consumption but about inefficiency. E.g. there is no logical reason to consume twice more watts, spend more money on cooling hardware, suffer more noise,... just to do the same work on about same time.

I 'guess' the reason why AMD is limiting its Zen CPUs to 95W, has a completely different explanation.

 

[cdrkf]

I hope Amd pushes their higher-end CPU's to 125 watts and leave their APU market to 65-95

That will just give people reason to scream over power consumption. As if the $0.62/mo. will break the budget for the electricity consumption (based on average US $/kwh).

I agree that all out raw performance is more important to a specific crowd...I fall into that crowd. However, Since AMD has had higher TDP, people have constantly complained about power consumption or heat generation while overclocking everything under the sun.

(I realize that it is absurd for people to overclock and complain, but many things people do on the internet are absurd...so take it for what you will...)

They didn't complain about power consumption but about inefficiency. E.g. there is no logical reason to consume twice more watts, spend more money on cooling hardware, suffer more noise,... just to do the same work on about same time.

I 'guess' the reason why AMD is limiting its Zen CPUs to 95W, has a completely different explanation.

I'm hoping that for one, the much higher IPC means they can get good performance at 95W.

 

[gamerk316]

*claimed* higher IPC. I don't think I need to remind anyone how BD got trumpeted here before it's release. Until I see real benchmarks that specifically measure IPC (Gaming versus Intel and FX would be a good place to start), I'm assuming real improvements in the 20% range, not the claimed 40%.

 

[de5_Roy]

GlobalFoundries Rumored To Be Acquired By The Chinese For The Most Obvious Reason
http://wccftech.com/globalfoundries-rumored-to-be-acquired-by-the-chinese/
AMD Carrizo Power Information To Be Exposed In Linux 4.3
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Carrizo-Hwmon-Linux-4.3

I agree that the overclocking comments are oxymorons...though you see people with 4.7 GHz intel chips talking about how terrible AMD power consumption is...then they show a power consumption benchmark with a stock, non-k series, i5 and talk about the massive gap in power consumption between their PC way overclocked and an AMD PC.

er.. that's got more to do with people's incessant desire to win internet arguments than with tech. yours truly is also guilty of this.