Originally Posted by SpeedyVT
What I'm saying is that often AMD compares IPC according to the stock clocks like they did with their FX series or their APUs. So they'll often compare a stock 2.7ghz processor to a 3.2ghz processor and well the 3.2ghz processor has more IPC. So we don't know if they're comparing IPC by clock for clock or stock for stock.
Is it a stock Excavator desktop IPC at 3.7ghz is 40% slower than a stock Zen processor at 2.7ghz, we don't know how they imply it.
I messaged a representative at AMD I'll fill us in as soon as I get a response.
When they do that they always say it's "x% faster than the previous generation." Here, though, we've had repeated claims of "40% more IPC than Excavator" spelled out for us over and over.
I think AMD is stressing this figure exactly because they don't know what to expect in the clockrate category, which is why we have all been speaking in frequency-neutral terms.
AMD's current FX CPUs come *stock* at nearly 5GHz. There's effectively no chance that Zen will do the same. It will be amazing if AMD pulls off 4GHz stock clock speeds with any headroom remaining.
From a pure performance perspective, Zen could be as little as 20% faster than FX-9590 to as much as 65% faster. I doubt even AMD knows where it will fall with enough confidence to make any claims at this point in time. The exact power draw for the CPU matters in this as well, if they're going to hold hard to the 95W max TDP.