Discussion: AMD Ryzen

[juanrga]

[quotemsg=19261291,0,528675]Intel will be using custom AMD graphics cores on its CPU's. I knew it. This is going to be very expensive plus royalties per part is going to be a massive money spinner for AMD. [/quotemsg]

I believe Intel will continue using its own tech for GPUs. I think that rumored hybrid with a CPU from Intel and a GPU from AMD is just a custom model for Apple.

 

[gamerk316]

[quotemsg=19261291,0,528675]Intel will be using custom AMD graphics cores on its CPU's. I knew it. This is going to be very expensive plus royalties per part is going to be a massive money spinner for AMD. [/quotemsg]

While at the same time making AMD APUs a lot less competitive in the market, costing AMD market share and profits.

So yeah, tradeoffs. This reeks of AMD needing money NOW at the expense of money in the future.

 

[sarinaide]

Why would that be a problem, AMD has said HBM2 will be on future APU's. Since nobody buys intel for igpu its free money.

Anyways per CPC intel release two high clocked i5's with hyperthreading now cannibalising the i7. Clearly AMD has rattled the cage

 

[juanrga]

CPCHardware has confirmed that the 3.6/4.0GHz Zen chip has a 105W TDP. They have also confirmed AMD has a serious clock problem with Zen. The quad-cores would get base clocks between 3.8GHz and 4.2GHz to be competitive with Intel range. However, AMD is having problems to pass the 3.2GHz mark. It is all in French, but I guess soon some of the copyandpaste sites as WCCFTECH will soon offer an article in English about this.

 

[8350rocks]

[quotemsg=19261372,0,1284262][quotemsg=19261291,0,528675]Intel will be using custom AMD graphics cores on its CPU's. I knew it. This is going to be very expensive plus royalties per part is going to be a massive money spinner for AMD. [/quotemsg]

I believe Intel will continue using its own tech for GPUs. I think that rumored hybrid with a CPU from Intel and a GPU from AMD is just a custom model for Apple.[/quotemsg]

This makes so much sense for something like an iMac.

I doubt we see it specifically for anything else...to be honest.

 

[8350rocks]

[quotemsg=19261924,0,1284262]CPCHardware has confirmed that the 3.6/4.0GHz Zen chip has a 105W TDP. They have also confirmed AMD has a serious clock problem with Zen. The quad-cores would get base clocks between 3.8GHz and 4.2GHz to be competitive with Intel range. However, AMD is having problems to pass the 3.2GHz mark. It is all in French, but I guess soon some of the copyandpaste sites as WCCFTECH will soon offer an article in English about this.[/quotemsg]

The quad cores, from what I gather, are the binned silicon...lower clocks, entry level parts, etc.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=19261675,0,528675]Why would that be a problem, AMD has said HBM2 will be on future APU's. Since nobody buys intel for igpu its free money.

Anyways per CPC intel release two high clocked i5's with hyperthreading now cannibalising the i7. Clearly AMD has rattled the cage[/quotemsg]

No but the majority of people buy their computers without a thought of what GPU is in it and Intel still has a much larger market share of the CPU market.

I guess we will see what comes of this but Intels iGPU is not horrible.

Then again I wouldn't use ANY iGPU so I am a horrible person to ask but the majority couldn't care less.

 

[jdwii]

[quotemsg=19261924,0,1284262]CPCHardware has confirmed that the 3.6/4.0GHz Zen chip has a 105W TDP. They have also confirmed AMD has a serious clock problem with Zen. The quad-cores would get base clocks between 3.8GHz and 4.2GHz to be competitive with Intel range. However, AMD is having problems to pass the 3.2GHz mark. It is all in French, but I guess soon some of the copyandpaste sites as WCCFTECH will soon offer an article in English about this.[/quotemsg]

Depending on price that could make these parts really cheap and possibly only 120$ or so.

 

[jaymc]

here is the leak... He say's it's going into Kaby lake. An MCM i.e. wont be on die... So it's not going into every chip or anything like that. Seem's at the moment to be for a very specific CPU... not on the die, not every Kaby Lake.

https://hardforum.com/threads/from-ati-to-amd-back-to-ati-a-journey-in-futility-h.1900681/page-72#post-1042797289

 

[sarinaide]

A ryzen octocore at 3.6-4 with a 100~ TDP is impressive especially with real performance.

If they can make a 4/8 with a 4770 clocks then im good with that.

Intel releasing two 110W TDP high clocked i5 skus with hyperthreading, the kick is someone in the loop told be at i7 price. Intel being dumb again

 

[jdwii]

[quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]A ryzen octocore at 3.6-4 with a 100~ TDP is impressive especially with real performance.

If they can make a 4/8 with a 4770 clocks then im good with that.

Intel releasing two 110W TDP high clocked i5 skus with hyperthreading, the kick is someone in the loop told be at i7 price. Intel being dumb again[/quotemsg]

Basically think they have been making these parts waiting for Ryzen to finally hit the stores then they could always do a price drop.

I5 you speak of could always see a price drop same with the rumors of them bringing basically everything down a line. Intel might even make a mainstream I7 6 core part next gen.
I3 unlock 180$ LOL is all i have to say
Pentium with HT is a great deal for 65$ real good deal i owned a I3 for gaming its better then a 8350 in a decent amount of games like far cry 4 not saying all for example BF1 i'd rather use a 8350.

Just proves how much we need competition I said it before Intel has been really screwing us over with charging 800$ more for a processor with 2 more cores and charging 180$ for 2 cores for years.

I think it cost more for Amd to manufacture an 8 core FX then it does for Intel to manufacture a quad core I7.

Ryzen launches on the 3rd(same day as switch) we can see how Intel reacts to ryzen. If ryzen doesn't actually compete(very least within 10-15% with Kaby-lake/Skylake on both single threaded and multi threaded Intel might not have much of an excuse to do anything as a quick response.

I'm wondering if Ryzen will support 4K Netflix? I know they said Windows 7 will work on Ryzen which i thought was kind of cool since a decent amount still want to use 7. I could even see some people buying Ryzen over kaby-lake for that very reason.

 

[sarinaide]

http://

Less die space used gives AMD flexibility to throw more on a die by update.

 

[jdwii]

^^^ Also that gives them the position to be the cheaper performance per dollar company Nice to see

 

[sarinaide]

[quotemsg=19264198,0,365092]^^^ Also that gives them the position to be the cheaper performance per dollar company Nice to see [/quotemsg]

Intel releasing two mid 4Ghz i5's with HT is not something Intel are doing because they feel like, it is a reaction to probable better than thought performance by Ryzen. This is what competition does, Intel now have to restructure their pricing as they can't sell a i5 that is faster than a 7700K for less and eat their market for the i7 away.

This is a very clear message that Intel are concerned at the damage Ryzen will do at mid to high end

 

[juanrga]

[quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]A ryzen octocore at 3.6-4 with a 100~ TDP is impressive especially with real performance.[/quotemsg]

It is 105W and apparently is not released. Its performance would be on pair with 6900k on heavily multithreaded benches.

[quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]If they can make a 4/8 with a 4770 clocks then im good with that.[/quotemsg]

As mentioned above CPCHwardware confirms that AMD has problems to clock the quad-cores above 3.2GHz.

[quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]Intel releasing two 110W TDP high clocked i5 skus with hyperthreading, the kick is someone in the loop told be at i7 price. Intel being dumb again[/quotemsg]

The rumor is that Intel is releasing an i5 and an i7 model with slightly higher higher clocks. There are contradictory statements about the i5, one side says it has Hyperthreading, another side says it doesn't have.

3DCenter extrapolation of the performance of the i7-7700k was incorrect. The chip is not so fast as they estimated. However, the rumored new i7-7740k model could get the score they predicted for the i7-7700k thanks to the higher clocks. In this case, an i7-7740k would be so fast as a 6-core Ryzen on heavily multithreaded benches

 

[sarinaide]

[quotemsg=19264432,0,1284262][quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]A ryzen octocore at 3.6-4 with a 100~ TDP is impressive especially with real performance.[/quotemsg]

It is 105W and apparently is not released. Its performance would be on pair with 6900k on heavily multithreaded benches.

[quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]If they can make a 4/8 with a 4770 clocks then im good with that.[/quotemsg]

As mentioned above CPCHwardware confirms that AMD has problems to clock the quad-cores above 3.2GHz.

[quotemsg=19263733,0,528675]Intel releasing two 110W TDP high clocked i5 skus with hyperthreading, the kick is someone in the loop told be at i7 price. Intel being dumb again[/quotemsg]

The rumor is that Intel is releasing an i5 and an i7 model with slightly higher higher clocks. There are contradictory statements about the i5, one side says it has Hyperthreading, another side says it doesn't have.

3DCenter extrapolation of the performance of the i7-7700k was incorrect. The chip is not so fast as they estimated. However, the rumored new i7-7740k model could get the score they predicted for the i7-7700k thanks to the higher clocks. In this case, an i7-7740k would be so fast as a 6-core Ryzen on heavily multithreaded benches

[/quotemsg]

At the cost of power efficiency going out the window, from good sources I am told that Ryzen doesn't need clockspeed to deliver good performance even told that a 2600K heavily OC'd cannot keep up showing baseline performance is strong.

Further that if you want good overclocking you have to buy the higher end parts with preferential silicon as there is a definite difference between top picked silicon and the binned silicon per class ie: 1800X > 1700X. Intel is just resorting to clockspeed because they cannot improve IPC and Ryzen seems to have hit a little to close to home.

 

[salgado18]

[quotemsg=19264696,0,528675]At the cost of power efficiency going out the window, from good sources I am told that Ryzen doesn't need clockspeed to deliver good performance even told that a 2600K heavily OC'd cannot keep up showing baseline performance is strong.

Further that if you want good overclocking you have to buy the higher end parts with preferential silicon as there is a definite difference between top picked silicon and the binned silicon per class ie: 1800X > 1700X. Intel is just resorting to clockspeed because they cannot improve IPC and Ryzen seems to have hit a little to close to home.[/quotemsg]

But a 4c/8t cpu clocked at 3.2GHz would need 25% HIGHER IPC to compete with a 4.0 GHz cpu. And, as we know, Zen IPC is not as high as Kaby Lake. Intel doesn't need to bump clocks to remain competitive, it needs to do it to keep the performance crown. If 4c Ryzen can't reach 4 GHz, then Intel still has the fastest part.

Your sources probably mean AMD doesn't need high clocks like FX 9590 to reach good performance, and instead can stay on more reasonable 3 to 4s. But if they can't reach higher clocks than 3.2 on the 4c parts, then we'll have to wait some months to see an i7-7700k competitor.

 

[sarinaide]

[quotemsg=19264799,0,120171][quotemsg=19264696,0,528675]At the cost of power efficiency going out the window, from good sources I am told that Ryzen doesn't need clockspeed to deliver good performance even told that a 2600K heavily OC'd cannot keep up showing baseline performance is strong.

Further that if you want good overclocking you have to buy the higher end parts with preferential silicon as there is a definite difference between top picked silicon and the binned silicon per class ie: 1800X > 1700X. Intel is just resorting to clockspeed because they cannot improve IPC and Ryzen seems to have hit a little to close to home.[/quotemsg]

But a 4c/8t cpu clocked at 3.2GHz would need 25% HIGHER IPC to compete with a 4.0 GHz cpu. And, as we know, Zen IPC is not as high as Kaby Lake. Intel doesn't need to bump clocks to remain competitive, it needs to do it to keep the performance crown. If 4c Ryzen can't reach 4 GHz, then Intel still has the fastest part.

Your sources probably mean AMD doesn't need high clocks like FX 9590 to reach good performance, and instead can stay on more reasonable 3 to 4s. But if they can't reach higher clocks than 3.2 on the 4c parts, then we'll have to wait some months to see an i7-7700k competitor.[/quotemsg]

The later yes, AMD doesn't need high clocks to have competitive performance and that while not being faster than KBL was never the ambition, close to hurts intel as much because they have to still sell high. A 4C Zen can sell at $200 beat many of its competitors parts and offer compelling performance for a great price, why would you want to spend $350 for a hybrid i5 when an SR7 1800X costs $500-600.

The point I am trying to make is that AMD can offer high performance at low clocks.

I am also told that AMD still have boost stability but have a lot of bios updates ready for partners boards to remedy the issue and set final clocks. I dont' think AMD will have 4+ Ghz clocks but 3.6-4Ghz or 3.4-3.9Ghz is the expected target range which is plenty fast.

 

[Ziga Stupar]

[quotemsg=19264839,0,528675][quotemsg=19264799,0,120171][quotemsg=19264696,0,528675]At the cost of power efficiency going out the window, from good sources I am told that Ryzen doesn't need clockspeed to deliver good performance even told that a 2600K heavily OC'd cannot keep up showing baseline performance is strong.

Further that if you want good overclocking you have to buy the higher end parts with preferential silicon as there is a definite difference between top picked silicon and the binned silicon per class ie: 1800X > 1700X. Intel is just resorting to clockspeed because they cannot improve IPC and Ryzen seems to have hit a little to close to home.[/quotemsg]

But a 4c/8t cpu clocked at 3.2GHz would need 25% HIGHER IPC to compete with a 4.0 GHz cpu. And, as we know, Zen IPC is not as high as Kaby Lake. Intel doesn't need to bump clocks to remain competitive, it needs to do it to keep the performance crown. If 4c Ryzen can't reach 4 GHz, then Intel still has the fastest part.

Your sources probably mean AMD doesn't need high clocks like FX 9590 to reach good performance, and instead can stay on more reasonable 3 to 4s. But if they can't reach higher clocks than 3.2 on the 4c parts, then we'll have to wait some months to see an i7-7700k competitor.[/quotemsg]

The later yes, AMD doesn't need high clocks to have competitive performance and that while not being faster than KBL was never the ambition, close to hurts intel as much because they have to still sell high. A 4C Zen can sell at $200 beat many of its competitors parts and offer compelling performance for a great price, why would you want to spend $350 for a hybrid i5 when an SR7 1800X costs $500-600.

The point I am trying to make is that AMD can offer high performance at low clocks.

I am also told that AMD still have boost stability but have a lot of bios updates ready for partners boards to remedy the issue and set final clocks. I dont' think AMD will have 4+ Ghz clocks but 3.6-4Ghz or 3.4-3.9Ghz is the expected target range which is plenty fast.

[/quotemsg]

On most writen stuff you are right, but one mistake:

4c/8t Ryzen is not i7 7700k competition, but 6c/12t or 8c/16t Ryzen will compete with i7 7700k

 

[salgado18]

[quotemsg=19264839,0,528675]The later yes, AMD doesn't need high clocks to have competitive performance and that while not being faster than KBL was never the ambition, close to hurts intel as much because they have to still sell high. A 4C Zen can sell at $200 beat many of its competitors parts and offer compelling performance for a great price, why would you want to spend $350 for a hybrid i5 when an SR7 1800X costs $500-600.

The point I am trying to make is that AMD can offer high performance at low clocks.

I am also told that AMD still have boost stability but have a lot of bios updates ready for partners boards to remedy the issue and set final clocks. I dont' think AMD will have 4+ Ghz clocks but 3.6-4Ghz or 3.4-3.9Ghz is the expected target range which is plenty fast.
[/quotemsg]

I have to agree there, and hope that AMD sorts the low clock issues as soon as possible. Mainstream is where the money is at, but marketing needs the high-end.

[quotemsg=19264846,0,1378193]

On most writen stuff you are right, but one mistake:

4c/8t Ryzen is not i7 7700k competition, but 6c/12t or 8c/16t Ryzen will compete with i7 7700k[/quotemsg]

At most the 6c/12t, because 7700k has ~25% more clock and ~15-20% more IPC, which means 50% more cores makes it even in threaded loads (which most heavy programs and tasks are). However, I fear that will bring back again the old battle: efficient Intels versus many-core AMDs.

 

[juanrga]

[quotemsg=19264839,0,528675]AMD doesn't need high clocks to have competitive performance and that while not being faster than KBL was never the ambition, close to hurts intel as much because they have to still sell high. A 4C Zen can sell at $200 beat many of its competitors parts and offer compelling performance for a great price, why would you want to spend $350 for a hybrid i5 when an SR7 1800X costs $500-600.

The point I am trying to make is that AMD can offer high performance at low clocks. [/quotemsg]

CPCHarware mentioned AMD would have to hit from 3.8GHz to 4.2GHz to be competitive. Current quads are 3.2GHz. It doesn't matter if those are priced at $200, when faster $240 KBL chips are available.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=19265767,0,1284262][quotemsg=19264839,0,528675]AMD doesn't need high clocks to have competitive performance and that while not being faster than KBL was never the ambition, close to hurts intel as much because they have to still sell high. A 4C Zen can sell at $200 beat many of its competitors parts and offer compelling performance for a great price, why would you want to spend $350 for a hybrid i5 when an SR7 1800X costs $500-600.

The point I am trying to make is that AMD can offer high performance at low clocks. [/quotemsg]

Like CPCHarware mentioned AMD would have to hit from 3.8GHz to 4.2GHz to be competitive. Current quads are 3.2GHz. It doesn't matter if those are priced at $200, when faster $240 KBL chips are available.[/quotemsg]

Even if they are faster or competitive the biggest question on my mind right now is if AMD does succeed can they continue to do it or will it be like K8 to K10 again.

 

[juanrga]

[quotemsg=19264125,0,528675]http://

Less die space used gives AMD flexibility to throw more on a die by update. [/quotemsg]

That is not die space. Moreover the Zen design looks terribly unoptimized. 44mm^2 vs 49mm^2 is a 11% difference on favor of AMD, but one must recall that Zen is a 2x128bit core, whereas Intel is 2x256bit. I.e. Intel has 11% higher size but about 2x more FLOPS.

 

[juanrga]

The anonymous post that Sarinaide quoted here

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-2986517/discussion-amd-zen/page-41.html#19257707

is in reality a post from mine that I wrote in another part. CPCHardware has just praised my analysis of AMD problems with clocks and and retweeted my analysis to their followers.

 

[sarinaide]

Apparently all the major motherboard manufacturers have a slew of bios updates that will enable turbo and fix stability. There is a positive feeling that AMD will hit 3.5-4ghz targets, one such update allowed an old ES to run high clocks stable.

It's amazing how the tune has been changed to competing with Kaby Lake now