Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 564 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:


AMD has finally published additional performance figures for Zen beyond the 40% IPC improvement over excavator that the company talked about last year. The 40% IPC uplift figure represents the architectural performance per clock improvement of Zen vs AMD's last CPU architecture, code named Excavator. And while comparing the architectural capabilities of Zen to Excavator may have been informative, it doesn't offer a direct real-world product to product comparison. Thankfully, we do finally have direct real-world performance figures for Zen.

Compared to AMD's "Orochi" quad module, eight core die powering the FX 8350, the Zen based desktop Summit Ridge eight core CPU delivers double the performance in Cinebench R15. This means that a single Zen core is in effect equivalent to two Piledriver cores in performance, which is incredibly impressive. This dramatic performance difference comes from the significant architectural performance per clock improvements in addition to Zen's simultaneous multithreading capability.

it's important to remember that AMD's latest Orochi dies feature Piledriver cores rather than Excavator. Excavator cores are roughly 15% faster per clock than Piledriver This in turn puts Zen at a lead in excess of 60% vs Piledriver in terms of performance per clock. Doubling the performance of the FX 8350 puts Zen in direct competition with Intel's eight core i7 5960X.
Source: http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-cpu-performance-double-fx-8350/

This chart is not official and should only be used for comparisons:



AMD FX 8350 @ stock in Cinebench R15 = 630-670 points

AMD Zen @ Stock in Cinebench R15 = 1300 points

Intel Core i7 5960X @ stock in Cinebench R15 = 1337 points
Quote:
AMD has published a graph which seems to indicate that the upcoming Summit Ridge-processor for desktops is twice as fast as the AMD FX-8350 processor. Specific numbers are missing, but the slide certainly shows 2x perf.

The graph was shown during a presentation to AMD investors. The image shows a comparison of Orochi with Summit. Orochi is the codename behind the AMD FX-8350 processor. With Summit AMD wuld be referring to Summit Ridge; including Zen CPUs for desktops.
Source 2: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-hints-that-zen-cpu-is-twice-as-fast-as-the-fx-8350.html
Quote:
According to AMD, Zen will deliver double the performance of their previous FX 8350, bringing them on par with Intel's eight core i7 5960X Extreme Edition. Zen based CPUs are also revealed to offer beyond 40% improvement in instructions per clock (IPC) over the current Excavator lineup.

This may sound pretty impressive on paper, but AMD has also published the real-world performance comparison for Zen for the first time ever.

The comparison shows just how improved the eight-core Summit Ridge offering is compared to their "Orochi" quad module, which is also an eight-core die that powered the FX 8350.

Performance-wise, each Zen core is equivalent to two Piledriver cores. Considering Excavator cores are roughly 15% faster per clock than Piledriver, this means Zen would offer 60% more performance per clock than Piledriver - which in turn puts it in direct competition with Intel i7 5960X.
Source 3: http://techfrag.com/2016/05/24/amd-zen-summit-ridge-twice-fast-fx-8350-par-intel-i7-5960x-extreme/

Source 4:

PDF: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzM5MzMxfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1&cb=635992964179233292 (it's on Page 11 / 31)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

AMD FX 8350 @ stock in Cinebench R15 = 650 points

AMD Zen @ stock in Cinebench R15 = 1300 points

Intel Core i7 5960X @ stock in Cinebench R15 = 1337 points
So it's a flipping beast?
 

·
Official Luddite of OCN
Joined
·
5,730 Posts
Now what is this actually going to be clocked at? IPC improvements are great obviously but if this thing is 3ghz or less with not much headroom it's really not a beast after all for **most** people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Now what is this actually going to be clocked at? IPC improvements are great obviously but if this thing is 3ghz or less with not much headroom it's really not a beast after all.
If is its anything like there previous chips. They all had a pretty decent overclock headroom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,660 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Now what is this actually going to be clocked at? IPC improvements are great obviously but if this thing is 3ghz or less with not much headroom it's really not a beast after all for **most** people.
But like, if it's twice as fast in r15 than an 8350.... it must have a decent clock no?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
986 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Now what is this actually going to be clocked at? IPC improvements are great obviously but if this thing is 3ghz or less with not much headroom it's really not a beast after all for **most** people.
Your profile pic is fitting, you managed to come up with a negative that you created in your own mind
wink.gif


If the cpu is 3Ghz and performs like that then it's a massive win for AMD.

Personally I think these said results are on a high clocked Zen probably in the 4ghz-4.5ghz range.

Would love to see a lower clocked X8 at 3-3.5ghz for about $500. Overclocker's dream
biggrin.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Now what is this actually going to be clocked at? IPC improvements are great obviously but if this thing is 3ghz or less with not much headroom it's really not a beast after all for **most** people.
me think this thing use higher core clock to match 5960X. At least it is matching 5960X. instead of FX8350 not anywhere near a quad core.

oh well who cares right? if the price/performance is really good, I will jump in too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,636 Posts
Amazing if true, but I'm skeptical and think that someone's math is wrong.
Quote:
This in turn puts Zen at a lead in excess of 60% vs Piledriver in terms of performance per clock.
650 -> 1300 is 100% performance increase. I would think that +60% of 650 would yield a score of 1,040?

Unless WCCF knows that Zen's stock speed is >4ghz?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
Looking good AMD!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

me think this thing use higher core clock to match 5960X. At least it is matching 5960X. instead of FX8350 not anywhere near a quad core.

oh well who cares right? if the price/performance is really good, I will jump in too.
Exactly. Even if this thing is clocked to the sky to match a 5960X, we still will finally have some revival of competition.
 

·
Official Luddite of OCN
Joined
·
5,730 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waitng4realGPU View Post

Your profile pic is fitting, you managed to come up with a negative that you created in your own mind
wink.gif
Only being pessimistic based on the hope that I will be pleasantly surprised. After going through a 8120, 8350 and 9590 I'm still taking everything with a major grain of salt until it's in the consumer's hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waitng4realGPU View Post

If the cpu is 3Ghz and performs like that then it's a massive win for AMD.

Personally I think these said results are on a high clocked Zen probably in the 4ghz-4.5ghz range.

Would love to see a lower clocked X8 at 3-3.5ghz for about $500. Overclocker's dream
biggrin.gif
Unfortunately in AMD's position $500 is just too much to charge for a 8 core from AMD with similar performance to intel's only when clocked high. They need to really have a good price to even think about gaining market share back. Intel will just release new sku's.. look at the xeon's they are sitting on that could easily become consumer chips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuhfhrh View Post

Exactly. Even if this thing is clocked to the sky to match a 5960X, we still will finally have some revival of competition.
But the problem with this is the 5960x came out Q3 of 2014... we are pretty much 2 years from that point as is. Don't get me wrong I very much look forward to more options as I'd love to be back on an AMD platform, but it begs the question, if Zen is now closing the gap somewhat more, why would I still go that route if intel has the faster chip still let alone the one very likely around the corner waiting for Zen's release?

Again, going to come down to pricing. They are really going to have be extremely low margin on pricing to gain any market share back unfortunately and it's a revolving door for AMD that hurts them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
986 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Only being pessimistic based on the hope that I will be pleasantly surprised. After going through a 8120, 8350 and 9590 I'm still taking everything with a major grain of salt until it's in the consumer's hands.
Unfortunately in AMD's position $500 is just too much to charge for a 8 core from AMD with similar performance to intel's only when clocked high. They need to really have a good price to even think about gaining market share back. Intel will just release new sku's.. look at the xeon's they are sitting on that could easily become consumer chips.
Yeah fair enough to be skeptical but it is looking promising.

I don't think $500 is too much if it's an absolute beast, and I'm sure they'll have a couple of different 8 cores, plus a couple of different 6 core cpu's too. I'm sure AMD will price them competitively in each segment.

The 6 cores will be priced aggressively I imagine and could quite easily gain a lot of traction in the enthusiast/gaming market. Haven't heard anything about quad cores for the FX series. The APUs will have quad cores and will also slot into the AM4 socket.

Another perk is that the AM4 socket will no doubt have a longer lifespan than intel sockets that get changed regularly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post

Amazing if true, but I'm skeptical and think that someone's math is wrong.
650 -> 1300 is 100% performance increase. I would think that +60% of 650 would yield a score of 1,040?

Unless WCCF knows that Zen's stock speed is >4ghz?
Maybe CB is just a favorable benchmark for Zen, maybe its stock clocks and TDP are so high it eats up all the overclocking headroom, maybe its not an accurate number, maybe it really performs that well, maybe it's priced like an 8 core Haswell part, maybe it redefines the CPU market.

We can hope, but lets not get too carried away, AMD wants to make a profit here.
 

·
Consumerism 101
Joined
·
4,098 Posts
I was wondering how long it would take wccf to circulate this rumor
rolleyes.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,660 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post

Amazing if true, but I'm skeptical and think that someone's math is wrong.
650 -> 1300 is 100% performance increase. I would think that +60% of 650 would yield a score of 1,040?

Unless WCCF knows that Zen's stock speed is >4ghz?
Well i think it is because cmt didn't scale perfectly... can't remember the exact number but it was 6.5x or something in cinebench for the fx 8 cores. So I think they are saying single threaded ipc its in excess of a 60% compared to a piledriver core, and it also has better scaling across the 8 cores, cuz they dont have to share resources like the modules did.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post

Amazing if true, but I'm skeptical and think that someone's math is wrong.
650 -> 1300 is 100% performance increase. I would think that +60% of 650 would yield a score of 1,040?

Unless WCCF knows that Zen's stock speed is >4ghz?
I'm basing the Math on the title and body which claims based on the charts double the performance over an 8350.
 
1 - 20 of 564 Posts
Top