I can't stand how sites that are supposed to cover tech news either get things so wrong or are influenced (somehow) to make things look better or in this case, worse than they really are.
If you consider that throughout history, engineering samples generally perform much worse than the eventual production part, which historically perform anywhere from 20-50% better than the ES's then we can calculate some very favorable results from this one leaked, potentially real benchmark. At 2.8Ghz, it performs between an i5 and i7 (those numbers aren't much different than the Skylake units). We need to understand that ES's are sent to OEM's to provide feedback for additional tweaking prior to production launch. Fishers, for example sampled at anywhere from 1.8GHz to 3.3GHz while the production part came out at 4.0GHz. So, if we take just the frequency, and place it at 4.0GHz, we can basically (obviously not actually, because we don't know the performance/clock curve of the architecture) calculate that performance would exceed that of the i7 4790 and place it on par with most likely the 6700k or perhaps even the Kabylake update i7 version. That is with frequency alone. With additional tweaks, it could outperform the i7 by even more. Also keep in mind that AoTS doesn't seem to scale much past 6 cores, so this Zen CPU can outperform the i7's even more with multithreaded apps/games that can take advantage of the additional threads.
So long as it is priced well (~$300), it will be a fantastic product for the money. Sites that report the way this article has, lose credibility. Anandtech would never report in this manner. Way to shoot yourself in the foot Techspot. Whereas I had respect for you in the past I have less of it now after reading the quality lacking article this is.
So you slam Techspot for their article, but decide to give completely unsubstantiated numbers to project that this CPU will be on par with a Kaby Lake i7?!?!
So, if we take just the frequency, and place it at 4.0GHz, we can basically (obviously not actually, because we don't know the performance/clock curve of the architecture) calculate that performance would exceed that of the i7 4790 and place it on par with most likely the 6700k or perhaps even the Kabylake update i7 version. That is with frequency alone.
I can understand being unhappy that Techspot says this benchmark is a disappointment for AMD (it IS, but only at face value).... But NO ONE (well, Hardreset probably can) can project where this CPU will fall given that it won't even be released until next year...
Welcome back troll - unsubstantiated.... As in we can't just adjust the frequency and multiply performance (the poster actually admitted this, yet did it anyways), and the article stated that this CPU will see general release in 2017 - that would be next year....
The article took great pains to point out that this was just one set of dubious benchmarks and stated that full conclusions could not be drawn... No need to complain about something that didn't actually happen...At my age I have grown tired of this type of article where a tech site, tech writer and even the tech editor are willing to "go out on a limb" with dubiously leaked info on an ES part and speculate on what it means for the "future of AMD". I am afraid you have just lost two doses of respect from someone who has watched tech news from when clock speeds were measured in Mhz.
Tip my hat to "Hardreset" for his comments but I realize that for some it is an exercise in futility.
Full market availability would mean the general launch.... Only the server parts will be available in Q4.... And this is irrelevant to my argument anyways.... My point is, you can't project what something will do before it exists.... And it won't be out for months at the earliest....
Actually...Your knowledge has been proven abysmal again! Server parts are coming LATER than desktop parts ""(y)""
Actually...
http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...d-cpu-roadmap-appears-online-zen-coming-2017/
We don't have any hard data on launch yet... but again... it doesn't matter!!! The point is (I know, you're just not very good at reading) you can't predict the future!! NO ONE CAN!
fool.com said:AMD has suffered from market share losses to both Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) in the CPU market and NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) in the GPU market over the past few years. The company is wildly unprofitable, posting a $660 million net loss in 2015 on $3.99 billion of revenue. So far this year, the company's numbers haven't been showing any signs of improvement.
fool.com said:Later this year, the first of AMD's Zen CPUs are expected to be released, with server variants coming in 2017. Zen will bring major improvements in performance and efficiency, and with the chips being built on a 14 nanometer process, the manufacturing gap between AMD and Intel will shrink. AMD's previous CPU architecture was largely a disaster for the company, leaving it with uncompetitive products, and Zen is supposed to right that wrong.
In addition to new product launches driving the stock price higher, AMD struck a major deal in April to license its chip technology to a new joint venture in China. The purpose of the JV will be to develop chips for servers to be sold in China, thus giving AMD another avenue to attack Intel's dominance in the data center. AMD expects to receive $293 million in licensing fees in addition to ongoing royalties.
AMD said ages ago that desktop Zen comes before server Zen.
This is so funny, you have zero knowledge but accuse others for trolling
So you are taking a post based on speculation and making even more speculation. All because you feel the desire to uplift AMD in front of people, who have already expressed a desire for AMD to succeed with Zen. Way to go mate!You have some difficulties understanding, let me help:
Again... it doesn't matter - my point was about predicting the future - how far into the future is irrelevant... and AMD has been quite quiet about official releases... so unless you can give me some hard facts (backed up by credible links), don't bother trolling...
We have been very focused on the server launch for first half of 2017. Desktop should launch before that.
So you are taking a post based on speculation and making even more speculation. All because you feel the desire to uplift AMD in front of people, who have already expressed a desire for AMD to succeed with Zen. Way to go mate!
I know. I did some of the very same calculations when making the first comment in the thread. No matter how you look at it, calculation based on speculation is still speculation.Not speculation, but calculation.
It was rumored speculation for the 100th time.What a crap, biased, anti-AMD article.
Ohh and we are to take your claim based on speculation even more seriously?Second you claim:
So you slam Techspot for their article, but decide to give completely unsubstantiated numbers to project that this CPU will be on par with a Kaby Lake i7?!?!
I can understand being unhappy that Techspot says this benchmark is a disappointment for AMD (it IS, but only at face value).... But NO ONE (well, Hardreset probably can) can project where this CPU will fall given that it won't even be released until next year...
Feel free to go create your own tech site, then spew all you want, nerd.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.
Really? Are you ready?
The Zen ES reports eight cores, 16 threads and is a 14nm part yet it can’t keep pace with Intel’s old chips?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
If the retail product is pushing speeds closer to 4GHz, performance will no doubt improve significantly.
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.
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.
Indeed, did you see any IPC analysis on "article"? I didn't. So actually even you admit that "article" was mostly BS.
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.
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.
I don't think you understand the definition of "evidence".... just giving a quote means nothing.... Give us some facts backed up by actual links... You claim AMD's CEO as your source - where's the link?Another hopeless effort where you try to hide your poor knowledge. Pathetic. AMD's CEO should be credible source.
You have once again proven wrong. Now, would you finally shut up?
Not speculation, but calculation.
In my experience, those who scream the word "fanboy" 4x in the same paragraph are usually even bigger ones themselves. Seriously, calm down and wait for the reviews like the rest of the grown ups...biased, anti-AMD, Nvidia/Intel fanboys, Nvidia fanboys, Nvidia fanboy, Nvidia fanboys, biased, etc.