Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [AMD] Breakthrough Performance of “Zen” (Head to Head with Broadwell-E!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[AMD] Breakthrough Performance of “Zen” (Head to Head with Broadwell-E!) - Page 12

post #111 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Well, AMD claimed 40% IPC increase. You can't possibally expect AMD to deliver more than what they claim.

AMD also say, "Zen's results have surpassed our expectations". Though I am taking it with grain of salt but anyway just saying. biggrin.gif
Edited by sumitlian - 8/18/16 at 9:15pm
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 #112 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

I fully understand those who were burned by BD wanting to have a healthy level of skepticism regarding Zen performance expectations but I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least IB parity given Keller's intimate involvement with the design of these chips. The man is a legend and has proven his expertise time and time again. If anything, I would be much more shocked if Zen turned out to be another BD-like failure given Keller's track record.

I have been expecting much the same and for pretty much the same reasons you listed. I do not expect Zen to be a failure because of the individual who headed the project. The fact that Keller left right after the chip tapped out tells us that the chip performed as expected. AMD is telling us that the chip is hitting its performance targets too.

This is not like Bulldozer where fancy marketing words were used such as "platformance" and "CMT" in order to cover up what AMD was really selling folks.

Zen has been without as much marketing fanfare and instead has been surrounded by rather open technical merits.

Zen looks to be good imo.
Edited by Mahigan - 8/18/16 at 9:16pm
Kn0wledge
(20 items)
 
Pati3nce
(14 items)
 
Wisd0m
(10 items)
 
Reply
Kn0wledge
(20 items)
 
Pati3nce
(14 items)
 
Wisd0m
(10 items)
 
Reply
post #113 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post


Well, AMD claimed 40% IPC increase. You can't possibally expect AMD to deliver more than what they claim.

 

The IPC increase was not the only benefit Zen brings. They are just showing how efficient AMD is now, per clock. Not how powerful they are..

post #114 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Skylake is 80% faster than Excavator in single thread IPC.

Zen is 40% faster than Excavator in IPC.

Skylake is about 30% faster than Sandy in IPC.

Don't get your hopes up.

If Zen can't do 4.5Ghz and still cost intel prices, then GG AMD.

Have a source for those numbers?
Big Timmah
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asrock x370 Killer SLI/AC Sapphire Radeon Nitro Fury CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB 3200mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
PNY 480GB SSD PH-TC12DX Black Windows 10 Pro LG 29inch Ultrawide 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Thermaltake SMART M Series 850W NZXT S340 White Steel ATX Mid Tower Case Wireless Logitech thing 
Mouse Pad
With a supple pad  
  hide details  
Reply
Big Timmah
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asrock x370 Killer SLI/AC Sapphire Radeon Nitro Fury CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB 3200mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
PNY 480GB SSD PH-TC12DX Black Windows 10 Pro LG 29inch Ultrawide 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Thermaltake SMART M Series 850W NZXT S340 White Steel ATX Mid Tower Case Wireless Logitech thing 
Mouse Pad
With a supple pad  
  hide details  
Reply
post #115 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Skylake is 80% faster than Excavator in single thread IPC.

Zen is 40% faster than Excavator in IPC.

Skylake is about 30% faster than Sandy in IPC.

Don't get your hopes up.

If Zen can't do 4.5Ghz and still cost intel prices, then GG AMD.

Any particular solid evidence to show this, especially evidence that isn't cherry picked? I doubt that....

Look, Intel is faster, but in reality they haven't been that insanely fast over AMD. Yes, the gap has gotten larger with the last 18 months or so, but Intel isn't leading 80%. Or, if IPC is 'truly' that much better, the real world translation of that isn't too significant. As outside of synthetic benchmarks, and a couple other specific areas, Intel's performance lead isn't as significant as people like to preach. Very unfortunately for AMD, it seems that the average person overvalues Intel's performance and undervalues AMD's performance.

There is a performance difference, but it isn't this insurmountable chasm. The idea that the former performance leader, who brought back the leader in architecture design, isn't capable of releasing a competing product, is laughable. I am getting the feeling that may people here haven't been into computers longer than maybe one architecture at this point. As a lot of people are acting like nothing existed before Intel in terms of high performance.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
post #116 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kpjoslee View Post

AMD pretty much adopted Intel like approach in SMT with Zen. It is simply taking advantage of its longer pipeline just like Intel's architecture. Any stuff from BD arch doesn't apply here.

Actually it does, the clear definition of what CMT is and what SMT is is entirely vague from the technical perspective. If some people said that FX four module was really a four core processor technically. So technically by all means it was and technically SMT if you treat it as one with HT, by that reference point. People said that AMD didn't use real cores in the attempt to make a cluster. Honestly I don't give a crud. Technology even research from CMT can be brought into SMT, vice-versa. The only thing that separates SMT to CMT, from a technical perspective, is the behavior of cores.
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #117 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

This statement dates you, completely.

AMD was the leader in CPU performance for years, and did command a premium. They proved, decades ago, they are more than capable in producing a superior product than Intel. Jim Keller himself has a proven record in architecture design as well.

The problem(s) that plague AMD have been money and trying to keep a dead architecture alive. Thankful Zen was just a big reset button for them. AMD has more than enough history behind them to command pricing, when their hardware justifies it.

That was then, this is now. Nothing anyone can do about that.

A product isn't just magically going to sell because the company was awesome long ago.

When your brand perception is what AMD's is, then you have little room to monkey around.

IF their product is good and I'm sure everyone here hopes it is, then it needs to be priced properly and maintained within its competitor.
post #118 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

Any particular solid evidence to show this, especially evidence that isn't cherry picked? I doubt that....

Look, Intel is faster, but in reality they haven't been that insanely fast over AMD. Yes, the gap has gotten larger with the last 18 months or so, but Intel isn't leading 80%. Or, if IPC is 'truly' that much better, the real world translation of that isn't too significant. As outside of synthetic benchmarks, and a couple other specific areas, Intel's performance lead isn't as significant as people like to preach. Very unfortunately for AMD, it seems that the average person overvalues Intel's performance and undervalues AMD's performance.

There is a performance difference, but it isn't this insurmountable chasm. The idea that the former performance leader, who brought back the leader in architecture design, isn't capable of releasing a competing product, is laughable. I am getting the feeling that may people here haven't been into computers longer than maybe one architecture at this point. As a lot of people are acting like nothing existed before Intel in terms of high performance.

You're absolutely right. The only reason people have this impression of gap between AMD and Intel is because people are using significantly more intense programs on CPU environments not quite kosher with them. You throw any light environment kosher on both and really you really don't see a large gap. It's why benchmarking isn't entirely accurate, it is accurate for the generation of cards it's designed for but... because the work loads suddenly become easier with newer technology the effort is saved proportional to the power and so scores double. You see this a lot with NVidia cards and benchmarks. Some games the 980 ti is still king to it's new 1070s, but 1070 crushes it in 3Dmark.
Edited by SpeedyVT - 8/18/16 at 9:42pm
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #119 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRUSH View Post

That was then, this is now. Nothing anyone can do about that.

A product isn't just magically going to sell because the company was awesome long ago.

When your brand perception is what AMD's is, then you have little room to monkey around.

IF their product is good and I'm sure everyone here hopes it is, then it needs to be priced properly and maintained within its competitor.

Who said anything about magic?

The person I quoted made a statement that literally neglected the majority of a companies existence, in order to support some claim. AMD can't create a compelling or competitive product? I guess we should all just ignore x64, the original FX, etc.

The history and record is there for AMD to charge according to their product, just like Intel. If it performs, it performs, and they have the right to ask as much as Intel would for the same performance.
Edited by PostalTwinkie - 8/18/16 at 9:42pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
post #120 of 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post

We already know cheap speakers make cheap sounds. Not even sure what you are on about.

Secondly, the standard is not headphones. In which people use, because they are much cheaper, quieter and easier than 5.1/7.1 set up.  And again, nobody is talking about actual quality of sound, but quality of positional sound, and latencies. The accuracy of the sounds in game & codec used.

Your card, nor dac adds to any of this, only the tonal quality, etc.

Hardware-accelerated 3D positional sound? EAX died with Windows XP. What we have now are in-game positional audio engines (software based). So your sound card does not need to process any of the positional audio. It simply needs to properly reproduce the sounds.

Therefore the only thing that matters is sound fidelity.

The reason I use Razer Surround is because it simulates positional audio (surround) in a way where as it can rectify the shortcomings of some in-game audio engines. Other than that... the only thing that matters is hearing your opponents footsteps, at least in FPS shooters such as Battlefield etc. You're not going to hear footsteps on a 5.1 sound system with a huge woofer. What you're going to hear is "BOOM BOOM BOOM" (thanks woofer)... which is nice and all (for watching movies) but not exactly the right gear for large scale FPS shooters such as the Battlefield series.

Motherboard sound cannot even come close to reproducing what an external DAC (hooked up to some good quality headphones) or what a high-end sound card such as an Asus Xonar Essence STX II can.

Sound accuracy is an area where onboard sound cards cannot touch high-end audio solutions. It is like night and day. Heck... going from a Creative X-Fi based Auzentech X-Fi Forte 7.1 sound card to the Asus Xonar Essence STX II was quite the experience.

I am sure that others have also gone from being naysayers to believers, such as myself, as it pertains to the difference a good quality sound card and/or DAC can make when paired with a great set of Headphones/Speakers.

So... what I would like to see from AMD's high-end platform is a push for better audio solutions from its motherboard partners. Something like a C-Media Oxygen HD CMI8788 DSP paired with some great connectivity options as well as decent DACs, OpAmps and of course a 600 Ohms headphone amplifier for top quality headphones as an option. This gives users the ability to use a SPDIF pass-thru cable to their own external DAC, the ability to hook up 5.1 or 7.1 sound systems and/or a great pair of headphones.

Not bad if you ask me.
Edited by Mahigan - 8/18/16 at 9:48pm
Kn0wledge
(20 items)
 
Pati3nce
(14 items)
 
Wisd0m
(10 items)
 
Reply
Kn0wledge
(20 items)
 
Pati3nce
(14 items)
 
Wisd0m
(10 items)
 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [AMD] Breakthrough Performance of “Zen” (Head to Head with Broadwell-E!)