AMD's Zen processors to feature up to 32 cores, 8-channel DDR4

[Technician]

I'm still confused why you mentioned x86. I just scanned through every comment, and you are the only one to mention x86 (32 bit). The topic/conversation is 32 cores (64 threads), not 32 bit vs 64 bit.

This conversation has a topic.... Uh oh.

 

[cliffordcooley]

This conversation has a topic.... Uh oh.

I didn't mean it that way. Just looking for clarification as to why it was brought up, because it didn't seem to fit anyone Else's comment or the Article. That's all I'm getting at.

 

[Technician]

Yeah I get that. It was a silly joke. I better get to bed, its getting late.

 

[ANTEATER]

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Intel was founded on IP that basically tore the heart out of IBM's magnetic core memory business.

maybe you should start recalculating first. The i3-3225 launch price was $134. Comparing prices for an old EoL'd part is a flawed exercise from the outset - after all nobody today spends $700 to buy a Phenom II X4 and HD 5870 do they?

Didn't want to speak to the AMD 64 reference....yeah, pick out the parts that make you look correct...yeah, Intel just "tore up" IBM...IBM is on NYSE, INTEL is still NASDAQ.....Hmmmm

 

[ANTEATER]

@cliffordcooley
I think our new member Anteater is just a drive-by troll TBH. A one post wonder. A like-for-like comparison wouldn't fit his narrative ( I.e. pick a current $120 i3-6100 w/ 27% higher CPU and 123% higher GPU Passmark score instead of a three-generation-old EOL'd IB, or the cherry-picked E8500/i7-640LM comparison that aren't even remotely in the same market segment).
New wave of uninformed trolling. Maybe refreshing their facebook page is losing its lustre.

CPU Mark / $Price
AMD FX-6300 Six-Core 60.43
AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core 53.92
Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz 42.48

That is from PASSMARK, TODAY!!!, am I missing something? BANG FO' BUCK!!...Where is the BEEF...ROTFLMAO....that means Roll on the Floor laughing my A$$ off for Newbies...Look, I am actually educated in the Computer Sciences, B.S. not CERT's...MY POINT is,
INTEL(and I) know that CACHE is what is important, L2 and L3. For almost 7 years, they having been making a capable processor, and then they "HAMSTRING" it with a little 2 or 3MB CACHE for $100.00....if you are willing to give them another $100 or $200 or MORE, they will let you have a version that has as much CACHE as my 7 Year Old processor, and then that "SUCKER" will actually work up to it's potential.....
No Offense...INTEL is desperately seeking some of the "Brain Trust", IBM posses...there is NO COMPETITION on that...
Just looked up your I3-6100...F* REALLY!!!, 3 MB cache!!! 14 nM tech and all you can fit is 3 MB...If YOU believe that my friend...Then you are a INTEL Fanboi for life....

 

[dividebyzero]

Didn't want to speak to the AMD 64 reference....yeah, pick out the parts that make you look correct

I didn't take issue with the AMD64 reference because it is basically correct - although a gross oversimplification on your part. AMD64 owes it existence in large part to alumni of DEC and Microsoft. AMD's part in the specification (Fred Weber and Jim Keller) was only part of the team that made AMD64 what it was - and it's rapid uptake and industry adoption at the expense of EMT64 was due to Microsoft's involvement (including David Cutler and Robert Short - also both ex-DEC). A third part of the equation was the SUSE community who provided the AMD64 compiler. Microsoft's backing ensured that AMD64 would achieve industry recognition and support.

...yeah, Intel just "tore up" IBM...IBM is on NYSE, INTEL is still NASDAQ.....Hmmmm

You really don't have a clue do you?
IBM's market cap is less than $US130billion, some $US70 billion less than its inflation adjusted cap in 1967-69 before Intel introduced DRAM less than two years later. In 1969 Intel was a $US1.75 million company and IBM owned 72% market share in computers.
Fast forward to 2016: Intel's market cap is $US5bn more than IBM's at $US135bn. IBM plays a poor second fiddle to Intel's Xeon in every aspect of the enterprise sector with around 10% to Intel's 99%+ market share. So eager were IBM to scale back competition with Intel they had to pay Globalfoundries to take their fabrication plants off their hands. Before Intel was born IBM was the dominant computer hardware vendor on the planet. Thanks to Wintel in personal computing and servers, and Intel alone in HPC, IBM are now predominantly a service provider.

Spoiler

 

[dividebyzero]

CPU Mark / $Price
AMD FX-6300 Six-Core 60.43
AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core 53.92
Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz 42.48
That is from PASSMARK, TODAY!!!, am I missing something? BANG FO' BUCK!!...Where is the BEEF...ROTFLMAO....that means Roll on the Floor laughing my A$$ off for Newbies...Look, I am actually educated in the Computer Sciences

Educated in computer sciences, talks up Passmark as the last word in silicon comparisons The rest of your post sounds like it was penned by a pre-teen.
Here's another viewpoint...not quite the disparity you paint
And another if you prefer your benchmarks with less words and gaming orientated

INTEL(and I) know that CACHE is what is important, L2 and L3. For almost 7 years, they having been making a capable processor, and then they "HAMSTRING" it with a little 2 or 3MB CACHE for $100.00...

Because they can.
Because an AMD FX can't touch it in power consumption for the increasing number of people moving to SFF gaming, and because AMD and it's OEM's can't be bothered with the mITX/mATX form factors, and because a lot of features that a Skylake user might take for granted (such as M.2/U.2/NVMe) are either unavailable - especially in smaller form factors - or are tacked on features on the umpteenth revision of a high dollar 900 chipset board. AMD offer a fully specced CPU at a budget price because they have to - it is the only saving grace for an aging platform basically unchanged for the last eight years.