Overclock.net banner

[Anand] New Zen engineering sample numbers - 8 core tops out at 3.6GHz

9K views 88 replies 35 participants last post by  Particle 
#1 ·
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/new-zen-microarchitecture-details.2465645/page-132#post-38535254
Quote:
Hi all! I went into the forest recently and birds have tweeted something again. They spoke about 2 new SKUs that have just hit the post-boxes of the mainboard manufacturers. They are both A0 revisions and Engineering Samples, so there is no improvement since my last post.

The first one is an 8-core design with AMD's HT implementation and it's got a 3150 MHz base clock, it's all-core turbo is 3300 MHz and the max turbo for 1 core is 3600 Mhz. Yes, here are some improvements regarding the previous 8-core SKU under the same TDP envelope.

The second SKU is a 4-core one with AMD's HT. It's got a 65W TDP and the base clock is still 2900 MHz. All-core turbo is 3100 MHz, max turbo is 3400 MHz. I don't know if it's only an SKU for testing mainboards or something is not okay with the clock-wattage correlation. I mean on higher clocks the 4-core SKU steps into the 95W TDP envelope, AMD can't keep the wattage low. Maybe GloFo's 14nm process needs some maturing... Frankly I don't have a clue what's in the background.

Retail AM4 mainboards are under production. The whole platform will be ready to have a paper-launch at the end of the year with a real availability in February of 2017. Performance wise the Zen uarch will be around Haswell and Broadwell (except for FMA), it seems it won't catch Skylake clock for clock. It's not a big deal, but if the clocks can't go higher until the start it won't fulfill the expectations. And we all know that expectations in this case are very high...
The source is the same one that leaked the previous numbers that turned out to be correct.

Looks like an upgrade in clock speeds for the 8 core variant (used to top out at 3.2, and had a base of 2.8), but the 4 core is same as before? (Aside from single core boost)
 
#2 ·
Odd that the higher core unit also has higher clocks. The only way that makes sense is if they are completely focused on the high end and are harvesting lesser cores for the low end. To me that would be a bad idea as they will sell many more low and mid-tier units.
 
#3 ·
The question is whether or not the final 8 core variant will have another clockspeed boost past the 3.3 GHz all core and 3.6 GHz.

I would not be surprised though if the 8 core variant does not get any faster to be honest. A little perspective - the 5960X has a 3.0 GHz base clock and a 3.5 GHz max core frequency before overclock. The overclocks ran from 4.4 to 4.6 GHz, with a few golden chips getting 4.7 GHz or a bit more. It would be very interesting to see what Zen gets in terms of both IPC and overclocked clockspeeds. I just hope that Intel has a fight on its hands. Remember a fiercely contested market is good for us enthusiasts. We want Intel and Nvidia to feel the heat, not gain a monopoly. Monopoly means higher prices for us and less innovation.

Skylake isn't that much faster (10% or so and often less), so it's not as big a barrier as people think. It would also make AMD a compelling option again on the server scene.

Actually - one other thing, if AMD really can do clock for clock with Haswell and Broadwell in a 95W TDP at 3.0 GHz with an 8 core CPU, that would be a phenomenal leap. Remember the 5960X has a TDP of 140W at 3 GHz. I'm skeptical for that reason - I think it'd be on the order of 140W like the 5960X, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. Jim Keller after all, has done some amazing things before, and this would not be the first.

Anyways, good find. +REP.
 
#5 ·
What's the source of this info? Sorry but I'm not buying into a single post with no reference in the slightest from a guy that has the username: AMD Polaris.
rolleyes.gif
 
#7 ·
Come on AMD, make my name great again.
 
#8 ·
The way the 8 core Zen is laid out, the 4 core sku should be the "dud" chips, so I can see them being slightly slower for the same power range as the "better" 8-core parts.

Maybe in 6 months, they'll spin dies with only 4 cores on them, and those can be binned higher.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

The question is whether or not the final 8 core variant will have another clockspeed boost past the 3.3 GHz all core and 3.6 GHz.

I would not be surprised though if the 8 core variant does not get any faster to be honest. A little perspective - the 5960X has a 3.0 GHz base clock and a 3.5 GHz max core frequency before overclock. The overclocks ran from 4.4 to 4.6 GHz, with a few golden chips getting 4.7 GHz or a bit more. It would be very interesting to see what Zen gets in terms of both IPC and overclocked clockspeeds. I just hope that Intel has a fight on its hands. Remember a fiercely contested market is good for us enthusiasts. We want Intel and Nvidia to feel the heat, not gain a monopoly. Monopoly means higher prices for us and less innovation.

Skylake isn't that much faster (10% or so and often less), so it's not as big a barrier as people think. It would also make AMD a compelling option again on the server scene.

Actually - one other thing, if AMD really can do clock for clock with Haswell and Broadwell in a 95W TDP at 3.0 GHz with an 8 core CPU, that would be a phenomenal leap. Remember the 5960X has a TDP of 140W at 3 GHz. I'm skeptical for that reason - I think it'd be on the other of 140W like the 5960X, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. Jim Keller after all, has done some amazing things before, and this would not be the first.

Anyways, good find. +REP.
The leaks we've seen suggest benchmark numbers closer to 4C Skylake, aka no IPC thats going to compete with a 5960X.

But that's all speculation until chips are out in the wild.
 
#13 ·
why cant AMD increase the TDP ceiling to 150w? Pretty sure with that TDP, those chips would not have problem factory clock at 4GHz.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

why cant AMD increase the TDP ceiling to 150w? Pretty sure with that TDP, those chips would not have problem factory clock at 4GHz.
Probably has to do with being competitive at a given TDP and price point. In other words , they don't need to run 4 ghz to outperform the competition at the planned selling price.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

why cant AMD increase the TDP ceiling to 150w? Pretty sure with that TDP, those chips would not have problem factory clock at 4GHz.
Wasn't AMD all about efficiency? Perf/watt, this and that per watt? They seem to be using this heavily in their marketing nowadays. I would not be surprised to see a higher TDP chip later, however, I believe that doing it now will likely cause issues for the current node process.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

why cant AMD increase the TDP ceiling to 150w? Pretty sure with that TDP, those chips would not have problem factory clock at 4GHz.
That's what $200-$300 mobo's are for.

Get an FX going over 4.5 GHz and you're easily into the 200 Watt range.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Probably has to do with being competitive at a given TDP and price point. In other words , they don't need to run 4 ghz to outperform the competition at the planned selling price.
well they are comparing it with broadwell-E during the slides.

broadwell-E is a140w parts. Intel has been on 140w-150w for years already. Even if Zen are selling at higher price @ Intel Hex core price, it would still be a terrific value due to extra 2 cores.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

well they are comparing it with broadwell-E during the slides.

broadwell-E is a140w parts. Intel has been on 140w-150w for years already. Even if Zen are selling at higher price @ Intel Hex core price, it would still be a terrific value due to extra 2 cores.
Yes, however Intel server chips have much better TDP. My Xeon E5-2670 has 115W and 3,1 max turbo on 8 cores.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoray View Post

I just hope they have the bonkers chip with some awful tdp like a 9590, but a lot faster. For those of us who dont mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoray View Post

But if that allowed significant performance gain, some of us with large custom loops wont notice. Ill take the performance.
Edit: Im not saying to sell all of them like that. Im saying sell a bonkers limited run chip.
I have been hoping for the same. I want another "mental" chip like my 9590!
devil.gif
 
#21 ·
Even if an 8 core Zen matches say a 6700k / 7700k at 90w, I'd still take Zen for those extra 4 cores, so sick of quad cores and that premium for a 2011-3 is just stupid for a couple extra cores and extra PCI-e.

Personally I'm waiting to see how Zen performs, if it's close enough to current Intel for a reasonable price here in Aus I'll be jumping on it.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post

The way the 8 core Zen is laid out, the 4 core sku should be the "dud" chips, so I can see them being slightly slower for the same power range as the "better" 8-core parts.

Maybe in 6 months, they'll spin dies with only 4 cores on them, and those can be binned higher.
thats not going to happen. If anything, 4 core parts will be harvested from apus, once they switch over to zen there as well.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imglidinhere View Post

What's the source of this info? Sorry but I'm not buying into a single post with no reference in the slightest from a guy that has the username: AMD Polaris.
rolleyes.gif
His first post was an accurate leak that was also vouched for by Dresdenboy.

Everything he said so far turned out true.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd-dude View Post

Come on AMD, make my name great again.
With that avatar, you're already great!

. . . for urologists eveywhere.

Back on-topic: leaks are leaks, take them with as much salt as necessary. The guy hasn't failed yet. One thing we don't know is: how old are those A0 chips? How long has AMD had them under wraps? If they spun out some A0 silicon 3-6 months ago that hit the clocks cited in OP then what are they going to have available at launch? There seems to be an overriding assumption that the leaked specs are for chips that just came out of the fabs only recently. Those A0 chips might be rather long in the tooth by now.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmrlordx View Post

Those A0 chips might be rather long in the tooth by now.
Very true.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post

That's what $200-$300 mobo's are for.

Get an FX going over 4.5 GHz and you're easily into the 200 Watt range.
Eh? People are getting 4.5-4.8 ghz on $80 motherboards and 5ghz + on $180 motherboards now. Those super expensive boards are only for those with more money than sense. Like intel users.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top