Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Guru3d]AMDs 8 core Zen compared against Intel's 5960X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Guru3d]AMDs 8 core Zen compared against Intel's 5960X - Page 4

post #31 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

This benchmark is interesting, with a 5960X at 3.2 GHz it lets us compare to the possibly fake leaked Zen ES benchmarks. Without this data point those leaked benchmarks weren't very informative and that older thread was pretty useless. We know AoTS is well threaded, but not perfectly, so comparing to quad core CPUs can hide bad single threaded performance with more threads but I didn't know how much.

We do not want to hype/plan based on only multi-threaded performance, we have been there before.

Both 5960X and Zen are 8-core. Both should have a penalty for poor multi thread support with AoTS if that was true.

That was my point, the quad core comparisons weren't very informative because of the unknown scaling on multiple cores. This one is much more informative.
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-17-17-37 CR1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Monoblock + GPU + 560 Rad Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
Reply
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-17-17-37 CR1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Monoblock + GPU + 560 Rad Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePath View Post

What people expecting ?! Everything from AMD get overhyped before it is release (just look at fury or polaris both were below expectations)

Zen should be a decent improvement over piledriver but don't expect it to bring any miracles

Below expectations for those who believed the hype. I personally was one of the people who believed some of the hype (clocks to 1500 easy, 980 performance). But in retrospect, the 4GB version offers quite the bang for the buck.

I think that if Zen performs between the i5 and i7 at stock, and is priced around $250 (Since those two processors are now 2 years old) it would be a good enough product. I always say, there are no bad products, there are only bad prices.
Edited by Exeed Orbit - 8/12/16 at 12:43pm
post #33 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

That was my point, the quad core comparisons weren't very informative because of the unknown scaling on multiple cores. This one is much more informative.

Oh sorry. Misread your post then.
Yeah this test should be a pretty accurate comparison since its the exact same settings and variables

Except nobody really knows how QS will do vs this ES sample though and what revision/stepping it is. Could be close, could be more to squeeze out before it hits the market
post #34 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exeed Orbit View Post

Below expectations for those who believed the hype. I personally was one of the people who believed some of the hype (clocks to 1500 easy, 980 performance). But in retrospect, the 4GB version offers quite the bang for the buck.

I think that if Zen performs between the i5 and i7 at stock, and is priced around $250 (Since those two processors are now 2 years old) it would be a good enough product. I always say, there are no bad products, there are only bad prices.

The thing that kills it for me is the single threaded performance. I can't buy it if it only works ok'ish in a handful of apps that scale beyond two or four threads.

If the rumours are both true and accurate, I feel like it is impossible for me to buy or recommend a Zen CPU. I think a 180$ i5 or a 130$ i3 is always going to make more sense for consumers, and AMD is no where close to intel for work station, enthusiasts, and servers.

Troubling mad.gif
post #35 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by mothergoose729 View Post

The thing that kills it for me is the single threaded performance. I can't buy it if it only works ok'ish in a handful of apps that scale beyond two or four threads.

If the rumours are both true and accurate, I feel like it is impossible for me to buy or recommend a Zen CPU. I think a 180$ i5 or a 130$ i3 is always going to make more sense for consumers, and AMD is no where close to intel for work station, enthusiasts, and servers.

Troubling mad.gif

I agree with you to some extent. They stated that they were focusing more on IPC for that very reason. The intention is there at least. Now all that remains to be seen is to what extent they've accomplished their goals. Lisa Su mentioned at some point that the improvements exceeded internal expectations. That makes me inclined to (cautiously) think that they might have exceeded the aforementioned 40% increase. I can only hope. I'm just aching for a reason to support AMD, but I'm a realist, I'm not going to overpay for a sub par product.
post #36 of 135
Thread Starter 
The result Guru3D found is roughly 30-35% over the FX-8370. Both clocked the same.
So AMDs 40% IPC gain over Excevator may not be far fetched
post #37 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

The result Guru3D found is roughly 30-35% over the FX-8370. Both clocked the same.
So AMDs 40% IPC gain over Excevator may not be far fetched

Exactly. Driver and firmware optimizations could (COULD... not will... not should...) give it an extra little kick.
post #38 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exeed Orbit View Post

Exactly. Driver and firmware optimizations could (COULD... not will... not should...) give it an extra little kick.
Thats a huge leap for AMD.
The primary target for AMD should be to close in the gap, have a design that they can improve upon for years, have good efficiency because we all know reviewers use that in their reviews, and not to bottleneck the GPUs or have significant lower FPS for gamers vs Intels CPUs.

IPC is more important for professional market isnt it? A way to overcome this there is by offering more cores for the same prices as the competitor, because professional applications support more threads than the typical consumer apps right?
post #39 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by mothergoose729 View Post

The thing that kills it for me is the single threaded performance. I can't buy it if it only works ok'ish in a handful of apps that scale beyond two or four threads.

If the rumours are both true and accurate, I feel like it is impossible for me to buy or recommend a Zen CPU. I think a 180$ i5 or a 130$ i3 is always going to make more sense for consumers, and AMD is no where close to intel for work station, enthusiasts, and servers.

Troubling mad.gif
I couldn't agree more.
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

The result Guru3D found is roughly 30-35% over the FX-8370. Both clocked the same.
So AMDs 40% IPC gain over Excevator may not be far fetched

That CPU is piledriver, not excavator - significant improvements were made between those 2 gens.

The 8370 also gets some ~6.8x core scaling usually up to 8 threads, it doesn't scale to 8x of single threaded performance due to the shared resources. A CPU with straight 8.0x core scaling would be expected to outperform it by 18% in benchmarks where scaling was like this even without any other improvements.

This bench points towards excavator-like IPC and is probably incorrect + useless. 8c16t Zen can't be that bad.
Quote:
and not to bottleneck the GPUs or have significant lower FPS for gamers vs Intels CPUs.

That quite literally translates into "don't perform significantly worse than Intel CPU's" unless you're testing on a game that challenges neither CPU.
Edited by Cyro999 - 8/12/16 at 2:04pm
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Guru3d]AMDs 8 core Zen compared against Intel's 5960X