Jaycomp2016
Posts: 6 +6
Um what the 3770k chews through those programs with ease. You must got that confused with some old slouch chip. 3770k is still close to what you get with a 6700k.
In leaked benchmarks, AMD Zen falls short of Intel Haswell, but shows promise nonetheless
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
Um what the 3770k chews through those programs with ease. You must got that confused with some old slouch chip. 3770k is still close to what you get with a 6700k.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Heck, even my trusty 2600K is still good for a bronze medallion.
Heck, even my trusty 2600K is still good for a bronze medallion.
Overclocked it is pretty difficult to find a difference between Haswell and Sandy Bridge, especially when gaming. Hell even the 6700K isn't much faster even when paired with high speed DDR4 memory.
I suspect this is the very reason many are hoping Zen can come in at least as strong as Skylake in terms of IPC performance.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
That's the very reason I'm in this thread. Positive Thinking People, and it might just happen! lol
It will be a dream come true if Zen delivers. People within the company who are close to the project have told me it won't be a let down. They seem genuinely excited so I can't help but get excited myself.
I have noticed that tech journalists have difficulties to do anything more demanding than reading numbers from benchmarks. No exception this time. This "journalist" is essentially saying Zen sucks because it's "11 percent slower than a Core i7-4790."
First, AOS benefits up to 4 cores, some other sources say perhaps 6 cores can bring some benefit
Because of this, Intel's quad core (i7-6700K) is faster than octa core (i7-5960) in this game.
Also we must remember that Zen Engineering Sample boasts 8 cores + SMT + many chipset options @ 2.8 GHz base + 3.2 GHz Turbo with only 95W TDP. In comparison, Intel's closest match is Xeon E5-2640 v3 that also has 8 cores with SMT and clocks 2.6 GHz base + 3.4 GHz Turbo. Not bad, eh?
I hardly see these results disappointing considering all facts. Perhaps next time @Shawn Knight can do something better than "Intel CPU faster=AMD sucks" type of news.
I have noticed that tech journalists have difficulties to do anything more demanding than reading numbers from benchmarks. No exception this time. This "journalist" is essentially saying Zen sucks because it's "11 percent slower than a Core i7-4790."
First, AOS benefits up to 4 cores, some other sources say perhaps 6 cores can bring some benefit
Because of this, Intel's quad core (i7-6700K) is faster than octa core (i7-5960) in this game.
Also we must remember that Zen Engineering Sample boasts 8 cores + SMT + many chipset options @ 2.8 GHz base + 3.2 GHz Turbo with only 95W TDP. In comparison, Intel's closest match is Xeon E5-2640 v3 that also has 8 cores with SMT and clocks 2.6 GHz base + 3.4 GHz Turbo. Not bad, eh?
I hardly see these results disappointing considering all facts. Perhaps next time @Shawn Knight can do something better than "Intel CPU faster=AMD sucks" type of news.
Your constant obsession for all things AMD isn’t healthy mate. Nothing Shawn said was out of line. This could very well be AMD’s last chance to get things right, so when a benchmark gets released showing them trailing Intel’s previous generation architecture it isn’t unreasonable to voice concern.
Not just that but by the time Zen arrives Intel will have made another step, albeit it probably another almost pointless baby step!
Shawn pointed out that the results might not be accurate/legitimate and he also said this is just a single benchmark so it’s tough to draw full conclusions.
Of course looking at the graph the AMD Zen processor is clocked 20% slower which means the 11% decline in performance when compared to the Core i7-4790 is actually very good. Keep in mind I am at this point assuming Zen overclocks well and not like a GCN 4th gen GPU.
When quoting Ashes of the Singularity DX12 performance, it probably isn’t wise to offer Beta numbers on an 8-core processor that is clearly GPU bound. Using my 6950X with HT disabled and a GTX 1080 I see the exact same level of utilization across all 10-cores which is about 20%.
Not only that but utilization isn’t that important here, as long as both processors offer the maximum number of cores the game can utilize then you get a very clear picture of IPC performance.
It is probably easy for you to overlook the fact that these results have been recorded using an RX 480 which is without question limiting the performance of the i7-4790. I personally doubt the legitimacy of these findings given the sources credibility but if they are true then for me they leave more questions than answers.
Jennax1985
Posts: 16 +5
I genuinely hope this delivers, if it does, then it would a great thing to have AMD back in the saddle and hopefully bring down prices of Intel chips too. I hope their next generation Vega based GPU's also are successful, we can all use price drops from both Intel and Nvidia. With DX12 becoming mainstream, I may even experiment with having a Vega AMD card play together with my single GTX Titan X Pascal. I'm currently saving up for another to SLI but if Vega delivers, it would be an interesting mix to have it play together with my current Titan X pascal. DX12 made multi-brand-GPU setups interesting. If Zen indeed delivers, I may even upgrade from my z97/i7 4790k depending on how well the performance is compared to the cost as I do want to get an 8 core CPU that is both good at single and multi threaded task. AMd has generally been good at multi-threaded task being an 8 core CPU but it would be nice to finally match competing Intel chips and even surpassing them for a while to get Intel to finally release a worthy successor to the refresh CPU's since the i7 2700k days... This could also offer a clue to how the XBOX Scorpio may perform like and what chips it will be using too. Interesting times for AMD and I hope they do deliver this time. I'm tired of the high prices both Intel and Nvidia price their chips such as my Titan X Pascal... I only bought it because it's truly the first single GPU that can nearly play all games at Ultra settings at 60FPS at 2160p.
The ball is in your court AMD.
The ball is in your court AMD.
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
I keep my fingers crossed for Zen! I would love to go back to AMD CPUs again!
We need competition and innovation. AMD is our only chance for that.
Go RED Team! ;-)
We need competition and innovation. AMD is our only chance for that.
Go RED Team! ;-)
Really? Are you ready?
Cannot? Yes, it cannot because @Shawn Knight cannot do anything else than just look at results.
I begin looking at those results only. Estimated clock speeds during test:
i5-4670K: 3.5 GHz (52.6 FPS)
i7-4790K: 3.8 GHz (65.4 FPS)
Zen ES: 3.0 GHz (58 FPS)
FPS per 1 GHz:
i5-4670K: 15.0
i7-4790: 16.97
Zen ES: 19.3
So Zen's IPC is much higher than Intel CPU's! If this is true, then Zen's IPC is much bigger than Haswell's.
Now, 8 cores cannot keep up with 4 cores?
i7-4790K: cores 4, threads 8, 3.4 GHz base, 3.8 GHz boost, 84W TDP (with no "integrated chipset")
Zen ES: cores 8, threads 16, 2.8 GHz base, 3.2 GHz boost, 95W TPD (with many chipset functions integrated)
CPU's have quite same TDP, AMD just have double number of cores.
Now, assuming both CPU's have same IPC and clocks during test are 3.8 GHz for i7-4790 and 3.0 GHz for Zen. For 4 cores used, i7 is 8 percent faster. 5 cores used, i7-4790 is STILL 2% faster. For Zen to surpass i7-4790 with same IPC that test needs to fully utilize at least 5.1 cores!
And so Zen sucks because it cannot keep pace when not all cores are used (n)
I understand that your job is to defend those who write at this site but as I clearly showed above, it seems that @Shawn Knight have no ability to do even basic calculations based on results.
And still AMD is bad because it cannot keep pace against quad cores on test that is not designed to test 8 core CPU's?
Exactly, you finally managed to do some simple calculations, not just looking what CPU has bigger number (y) Something @Shawn Knight didn't do.
Another blunder here:
Again, some simple knowledge tells this is unlike to happen, comparable AMD vs Intel:
Zen ES: cores 8, threads 16, 2.8 GHz base, 3.2 GHz boost, 95W TPD
Xeon E5-2640 v3: cores 8, threads 16, 2.6 GHz base, 3.4 GHz boost, 90W TDP
As even Intel cannot make octa core even close 4 GHz with same TDP, not very likely can AMD. Intel needs 140W TDP for that 4 GHz.
8-core Zen is designed to give good IPC and high core count at low power consumption and price. Something has to suffer, and that's clock speed.
Indeed, did you see any IPC analysis on "article"? I didn't. So actually even you admit that "article" was mostly BS.
Exactly, that test don't tell much but @Shawn Knight makes direct assumptions based on those numbers. Then those assumptions should be something better than "Intel 65.4, AMD 58.0, AMD sucks."
@Shawn Knight and @Steve : feel free to make that article better using anything I wrote on this post.
that's not fair... you have spies who are sharing information with you.
amstech
Posts: 2,661 +1,824
The same clowns with red noses are back jumping through rings and calling out Techspot staff on inarguable results?
Can we put clown logo's next to their name? Or change their avatar pics to snow cones and cotton candy?
Can we put clown logo's next to their name? Or change their avatar pics to snow cones and cotton candy?
JacekM
Posts: 7 +5
It reminds me times, when high frequency Intel could not keep up with lower clocked Athlon. The chip looks very good. It has potential to be clocked faster and compete with Intel best. I call it good news. Intel will have to lower prices and put more hard work into performance of their i7 line. The i7 practically stagnated in the last few years. Win - win for the customers.
shakattack
Posts: 9 +25
Zen ES is not using 8 cores it's only using 4 cores and 2 cores at 2.8 GHz. What this benchmark does show for certain is that the 4 core i7-4790 is about 40% faster than the AMD-8350. When clocked properly, Zen should provide decent performance boost. The benefit of Zen however is in the fact that it can be manufactured on large scale, provide decent power-efficiency, integrate into APUs and also be able to provide 32 core/ 64 thread server CPUs at great yield and prices.
This hardreset is really a clown. You are making arguments out of speculations and you never stop. Why dont you give us a in depth analysis of this chip and give us pure numbers and benchmarks and discuss the architecture behind it. Defending a leaked benchmark with nonsense and long arguments makes you a clown.
and btw, editors wont be writing articles just to please you.
and btw, editors wont be writing articles just to please you.
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
My 2500k at stock still runs through every game I toss at it with ease and I don't see that changing until the next generation of consoles come out regardless of ***** fanyboy hyperbole and their "future proofing" hopes & dreams. Even then the 2500k will still probably be competent considering how little of a burden is placed on CPUs for modern gaming.
I personally hope AMD offers better performance per core then their FX showing. Right now intel has a monopoly and that does not benefit anyone. I have a Phenom II 955 in my wifes computer and compared to my work CPU i5-4330 and gaming CPU 2500k, it's frustratingly slow.
I personally hope AMD offers better performance per core then their FX showing. Right now intel has a monopoly and that does not benefit anyone. I have a Phenom II 955 in my wifes computer and compared to my work CPU i5-4330 and gaming CPU 2500k, it's frustratingly slow.
No what Steve said is most smart people are waiting for proper in depth reviews from proper review sites, not hold up the WCCFTech click-bait 'rumor-mill' as the centre of the universe. The Zen may turn out to be a good chip, but if there was ever a website that was the tech equivalent of the celebrity gossip page of a tabloid newspaper, WCCFTech would be it...
I don't know if the new AMD CPUs will be able to compete with Intel i7s or not, but the results seemed to show this CPU fit directly between the i5 and the i7. Is that a bad thing? That seems like a useful speed if that is where it lands. I regularly hear an i5 is plenty for any game (the GPU carries most of the load), so this AMD CPU would be fine for gamers too. High end video editing or CAD drawings would be the question and require more data.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,592 +5,225
Most games aren't CPU bound past the i3, so yes - the AMD should be fine for that...
Again, it will be all about pricing - which there is no point in speculating on until we get far more information (or Hardreset can just make some numbers up for us to argue about).
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
People thought Bulldozer was going to be the end of AMD. Benchmarks were bad, so at the time, I went with Sandy Bridge E 3820 that I recently upgraded to a Ivy Bridge E 1650v2 for my "workhorse" PC. But for all other PCs I've built since, I have stuck with AMD: An Athlon 5350 for Linux router/shared storage/firewall, an A10-7850K for my HTPC. Neither of these PCs is slow by any means for what they do. I will not consider Intel's latest $1,700 E part when its performance does not align with its cost. In fact, this is why I went with a 3820 instead of the 3930 or 3960 - when benchmarks showed that sometimes even the 3820 bested those chips. From my viewpoint there is a large flock of people out there that think highest price equates with the best. If that's the case, then we should all switch to Audioquest for our speaker cables especially since they cost more than coat hangers and people cannot tell the difference between the two in critical listening tests.
For my 1650 PC, the best upgrade at this point will be replacing my GTX 580 with something newer that also performs much better - something that I am about to do and now that the newest parts offer a comfortable increase in performance for the cost.
IMO, AMD will not die if Zen does not match or beat Intel just as it did not die because of Bulldozer nor did Intel die with its dismal first-generation Core parts. As I see it, there is a point when more computational power really only buys the owner bragging rights. While their machine may play games faster, it does not necessarily mean that it makes the person sitting at the PC a better gamer - this applies to myself in equal measure, and that target market is niche at best.
At the least, it looks like Zen may give some Intel parts a run for their money, and since newer generations of Intel parts have not offered the revolutionary performance step of Core to Core II, it will be enough that AMD will likely survive. If anything, AMD has been a value brand and is likely comfortable with that. Personally, I see it as a definite positive that Lisa Chu is highly technical rather than a business wonk.
I'll wait to see production parts before I decide what I will use in my next "workhorse" build - with the note that I certainly will not be buying a $1,700 E part.
TheBigFatClown
Posts: 1,110 +495
"The Zen ES reports eight cores, 16 threads and is a 14nm part yet it can’t keep pace with Intel’s old chips?"
"Making matters even worse for AMD is the fact that Intel is planning to release Cannonlake, its 10nm die shrink of Kaby Lake, next year. AMD has said it doesn’t expect to ship Zen with full market availability until sometime in 2017."
I kind of agree with HardReset because of the statements made above in the article. HardReset makes some good points and I have a few extra thoughts of my own.
If the 8-cores aren't being fully utilized than making that comparison statement seems unjustified. But the ambiguity in the statement "Intel's old chips" is not helping the matter either.
Intel is always planning things but the plans don't always go exactly as...planned. One thing that is squarely on AMDs side is the apparent diminishing returns on Moore's Law. Intel's gains may become much less and on a less frequent basis than AMDs by the simple fact that transistor counts aren't doubling every 2-years. Intel is driving on unpaved dirt roads now while AMD is still driving on highways. They may be behind but they aren't out of the race.
So while it's easy to say things look bad for AMD, if they are making gains at a more rapid pace than Intel, even though they are behind right now, I don't see how that can be viewed as a bad thing.
And lastly the statements above completely disregard bang for buck, integrated APU performance, and TDP consumption.
"Making matters even worse for AMD is the fact that Intel is planning to release Cannonlake, its 10nm die shrink of Kaby Lake, next year. AMD has said it doesn’t expect to ship Zen with full market availability until sometime in 2017."
I kind of agree with HardReset because of the statements made above in the article. HardReset makes some good points and I have a few extra thoughts of my own.
If the 8-cores aren't being fully utilized than making that comparison statement seems unjustified. But the ambiguity in the statement "Intel's old chips" is not helping the matter either.
Intel is always planning things but the plans don't always go exactly as...planned. One thing that is squarely on AMDs side is the apparent diminishing returns on Moore's Law. Intel's gains may become much less and on a less frequent basis than AMDs by the simple fact that transistor counts aren't doubling every 2-years. Intel is driving on unpaved dirt roads now while AMD is still driving on highways. They may be behind but they aren't out of the race.
So while it's easy to say things look bad for AMD, if they are making gains at a more rapid pace than Intel, even though they are behind right now, I don't see how that can be viewed as a bad thing.
And lastly the statements above completely disregard bang for buck, integrated APU performance, and TDP consumption.
bluto 2050
Posts: 270 +33
I'm still gaming at 1080p ultra at decent settings and plausible frame rates with a newer nvidia gaming d/GPU and running productivity DAW's with 100 vst loaded fine with an Intel Sandy bridge i7 on my other box and outside of a 4K hires gaming / or a stonking multi d/GPU game build or hires rendering it still seems to be plenty of CPU here all this might be much more interesting with a ~ 4 - 4.7 Ghz stock clock .
The new AMD might be a god spot for a lot of users . I can see one of these new AMD replacing the aging 4 core AMD K10 on this test mule/ daily driver that still runs plenty fine for what it does with an SSD..
TBH for what this ancient thing does most of the time the new AMD probably wont look any faster than the aging K10 on an SSD sometimes with the SSD it's faster then the i7 box with a metal HDD until you get into heavy lifting and gaming .
Similar threads
