In leaked benchmarks, AMD Zen falls short of Intel Haswell, but shows promise nonetheless

Not that this adds any credibility to my point of view, but there is only one company that I can say I know better than most and that is AMD. I've studied their every move for over 10 years and with that said, I cannot argue with people who have been conditioned to think/believe that AMD is not a company to put faith into. With years of terrible management and products that reached for the stars, yet couldn't even get off the ground, and with a marketing department that hyped up such products to be the greatest things ever, they've developed a seriously bad reputation.

However, people that aren't as studious about AMD should know that the company has gone through a complete restructuring. They aren't the same company today as they were 8 years ago. They've downsized by almost 50%, hired completely new management who I must say is very sharp. Sharp enough to take hold of the entire console gaming industry (all 3 major consoles), sharp enough to use the last bit of resources on the best engineers to make the best products possible (Jim Keller, Raja Koduri), to fire the previous marketing department and hire incredibly intelligent people to take over the effort (Robert Hallock, Roy Taylor). Lisa Su has done an incredible job turning AMD around from a company that was on it's way to bankruptcy within 2 years to a company that has, for the first time in a while, become profitable again.

They are landing contracts left and right, e.g., current and next generation of XBox and Playstation (the rumor is that nVidia managed to convince Nintendo to go with their Tegra architecture for the new NX system, as the NX is based on mobile parts (each controller will basically be a tablet, which can be docked into a central unit, where they can then share resources and become a more powerful single unit, think Constructicons forming Devestator, however, with only x64 ARM CPU's, I'm not sure how powerful it will actually be), the new MacBook Pro's that are coming up as well as huge government contracts and pretty much taking market share by being the preferred brand over Intel in China (maybe Lisa has family connections there, lol).

The point is, you actually shouldn't base judgement of AMD today on the AMD of yesterday. They made a great move with Polaris and attacking the money market first while letting nVidia be prideful and foolish by attacking the top end, which consists of less than 5% of the market, and who are now still scrambling to answer with products of their own (1060 was a good one, but still overpriced. A cut down 1060 w/3GB is rumored to be in the works to target $200, which would be a good move). Meanwhile, while nV is busy trying to answer the mid and low end markets, AMD will attempt to take the spotlight away, yet again with an early release of Vega, which will have multiple iterations, however with HBM2, GCN 5.0, and 4096sp's, we'll have some competition for the 1070 and 1080 (I feel it will fall between the two), however, the AMD slides suggest that at it's best, Vega will sport "up to 18B transistors", which is a mind blowing figure considering the 4096sp model only has 8.9B, meaning a full fledged Vega is purported to have 8192sp's and up to 32GB of HBM2.0, which will force nV to respond with a GTX1080Ti and/or Titan XP, and even if those cards end up taking the performance crown, as long as AMD prices their stuff in the same manner as they did with the RX480, with respect to market position, they very well might have the greatest era of business decision making upon them.

All of this is why AMD's stock price has gone from a mere $1.86 last year to $7.00 today. With a successful launch of Zen in the CPU space, which looks very promising from those AoTS benches that were released (many don't quite know how to interpret that bench result, but I assure you it's promising), the stock is poised to double up yet again.

It's true that no one can predict the future, but one can speculate with given data, and my speculations have won many double, triple, and, even quadruple their money, through investing in AMD, because I could project the financial turnaround based on the way the company has set the stage, starting 6 years ago, for this very moment in time.

If anyone has any questions or would simply like to converse on the goings-on in the industry, feel free to post up. I'll provide my best info, with which you can do what you like. Try to keep it respectable though and I'll do the same.
 
Last edited:
Not that this adds any credibility to my point of view, but there is only one company that I can say I know better than most and that is AMD. I've studied their every move for over 10 years and with that said, I cannot argue with people who have been conditioned to think/believe that AMD is not a company to put faith into. With years of terrible management and products that reached for the stars, yet couldn't even get off the ground, and with a marketing department that hyped up such products to be the greatest things ever, they've developed a seriously bad reputation.

However, people that aren't as studious about AMD should know that the company has gone through a complete restructuring. They aren't the same company today as they were 8 years ago. They've downsized by almost 50%, hired completely new management who I must say is very sharp. Sharp enough to take hold of the entire console gaming industry (all 3 major consoles), sharp enough to use the last bit of resources on the best engineers to make the best products possible (Jim Keller, Raja Koduri), to fire the previous marketing department and hire incredibly intelligent people to take over the effort (Robert Hallock, Roy Taylor). Lisa Su has done an incredible job turning AMD around from a company that was on it's way to bankruptcy within 2 years to a company that has, for the first time in a while, become profitable again.

They are landing contracts left and right, e.g., current and next generation of XBox and Playstation (the rumor is that nVidia managed to convince Nintendo to go with their Tegra architecture for the new NX system, as the NX is based on mobile parts (each controller will basically be a tablet, which can be docked into a central unit, where they can then share resources and become a more powerful single unit, think Constructicons forming Devestator, however, with only x64 ARM CPU's, I'm not sure how powerful it will actually be), the new MacBook Pro's that are coming up as well as huge government contracts and pretty much taking market share by being the preferred brand over Intel in China (maybe Lisa has family connections there, lol).

The point is, you actually shouldn't base judgement of AMD today on the AMD of yesterday. They made a great move with Polaris and attacking the money market first while letting nVidia be prideful and foolish by attacking the top end, which consists of less than 5% of the market, and who are now still scrambling to answer with products of their own (1060 was a good one, but still overpriced. A cut down 1060 w/3GB is rumored to be in the works to target $200, which would be a good move). Meanwhile, while nV is busy trying to answer the mid and low end markets, AMD will attempt to take the spotlight away, yet again with an early release of Vega, which will have multiple iterations, however with HBM2, GCN 5.0, and 4096sp's, we'll have some competition for the 1070 and 1080 (I feel it will fall between the two), however, the AMD slides suggest that at it's best, Vega will sport "up to 18B transistors", which is a mind blowing figure considering the 4096sp model only has 8.9B, meaning a full fledged Vega is purported to have 8192sp's and up to 32GB of HBM2.0, which will force nV to respond with a GTX1080Ti and/or Titan XP, and even if those cards end up taking the performance crown, as long as AMD prices their stuff in the same manner as they did with the RX480, with respect to market position, they very well might have the greatest era of business decision making upon them.

All of this is why AMD's stock price has gone from a mere $1.86 last year to $7.00 today. With a successful launch of Zen in the CPU space, which looks very promising from those AoTS benches that were released (many don't quite know how to interpret that bench result, but I assure you it's promising) and the stock is poised to double up yet again.

It's true that no one can predict the future, but one can speculate with given data, and my speculations have won many double, triple, and, even quadruple their money, through investing in AMD, because I could project the financial turnaround based on the way the company has set the stage, starting 6 years ago, for this very moment in time.

If anyone has any questions or would simply like to converse on the goings on in the industry, feel free to post up. I'll provide my best info, with which you can do what you like. Try to keep it respectable though and I'll do the same.

Interesting posting
 
When AMD releases the 3.6GHz version, it will clearly outperform an i7-4790 3.6GHz. How does that fall short?
Really? How can you tell? Got any evidence to back that up? Remember, you can't just multiply clock frequency to find out a CPU's performance... You're gonna have to wait for real benchmarks to know anything for certain
 
When AMD releases the 3.6GHz version, it will clearly outperform an i7-4790 3.6GHz. How does that fall short?
we've heard all that from AMD before ( more than once ) and the pile driver hype was a pile of manure we'll see what shakes out and we'll also see what Intel counters with ☺

OTOH maybe AMD will have something entirely plausible for a lot of us at a decent price anyway ☺
 
Neat, another product from AMD that offers performance similar to someone else's tech from three years ago, yet the AMD fanboys are comically still dancing in the streets. It's like a bunch of hillbillies bragging that their wife/sister just graduated from high school.

Impressive to them, but nothing special to the rest of us.

Intel's new Skylake is only about 6% faster than "tech from three years ago". This means Skylake is slower than AMD Zen. Go brag that your wife/sister just graduated from high school you Intel fanboy hillbilly.
 
Intel's new Skylake is only about 6% faster than "tech from three years ago". This means Skylake is slower than AMD Zen. Go brag that your wife/sister just graduated from high school you Intel fanboy hillbilly.
How do you figure? If Zen is slower than 3-year old tech, and skylake is faster than 3 year old tech (even if only by 6%), how does Zen magically become faster than it?

Might want to check your logic - and stop marrying your sister....
 
Last edited:
Intel's new Skylake is only about 6% faster than "tech from three years ago". This means Skylake is slower than AMD Zen. Go brag that your wife/sister just graduated from high school you Intel fanboy hillbilly.
How do you figure? If Zen is slower than 3-year old tech, and skylake is faster than 3 year old tech (even if only by 6%), how does Zen magically become faster than it?

Might want to check your logic - and stop marrying your sister....

Read the benchmarks again;

Intel Core i7-4790 3.6GHz = 65.4 fps
AMD Zen 2.8GHz = 58.0 fps

It takes a 3.6GHz Intel chip to beat a 2.8GHz AMD chip. When AMD releases the 3.6GHz Zen, it should get over 70 fps.
 
Read the benchmarks again;

Intel Core i7-4790 3.6GHz = 65.4 fps
AMD Zen 2.8GHz = 58.0 fps

It takes a 3.6GHz Intel chip to beat a 2.8GHz AMD chip. When AMD releases the 3.6GHz Zen, it should get over 70 fps.
Nice going, you have joining the others in trying to provide evidence based on speculation. You should wait until after release. Their new chip maybe 4Ghz and then again it may only be 2Ghz. Until release you don't know which Intel chips will be competing against Zen. This article means nothing, when it comes to what Zen will be!
 
Does anybody honestly think a 2.8GHz i7 could beat the Zen?
Based on the benchmark, if accurate, no. But once again the benchmark is speculation. And as @Steve put it, from a potentially unreliable source at that. And having to limit a known CPU to compete is worth a giggle or two.
 
Does anybody honestly think a 2.8GHz i7 could beat the Zen?
...........right now it takes nearly 2 AMD cores and a higher clock to nearly equal a single Intel core lets not kid ourselves until the product gets bench marked at the usual credible websites.

FWIW I have 3 Intel PC and this older 2010 4 core AMD K10 windows 10 test mule /daily driver with an SSD is one of a few AMD builds that started with an AMD 486 DX2/66 back in the day .

I don't have anthing against AMD sometimes they can be a plausible compromise but I think fanboys are silly its about performance levels and wattage you can live with for the money with a CPU it's just a tool and some folks have more CPU than they will ever use while others may tax them. .
 
Does anybody honestly think a 2.8GHz i7 could beat the Zen?
I do... because other than a suspect benchmark that you can NOT draw ANY conclusions from, there is NO evidence to support that it can't...

Once again... let's wait until Zen is actually released before we go all "fanboy" :)
 
Intel's new Skylake is only about 6% faster than "tech from three years ago". This means Skylake is slower than AMD Zen. Go brag that your wife/sister just graduated from high school you Intel fanboy hillbilly.
Why do AMD fanboys always brag about what is *supposedly* being released in the future? Because the present is always mediocre for them. Two RX 480's were going to be faster than a GTX 1080, too... remember that bogus claim? Don't believe everything AMD says.
 
Last edited:
Why do AMD fanboys always brag about what is *supposedly* being released in the future? Because the present is always mediocre for them. Two RX 480's were going to be faster than a GTX 1080, too... remember that bogus claim? Don't believe everything AMD says.

I won't lie, this has been the case for over 6 years. AMD fans had to live with the Bullsh...dozer architecture and tried to find some way to be proud of it, which was impossible to do. Frustration set in, and all we could do is find specific multithreaded benchmarks that catered to the design, to find even 1 win we could brag about. It was a pathetic time having to deal with that, after an era that saw AMD at the top with the release of Athlon 64, when having an "FX" chip meant you had a badass beast in you gaming rig. Even after that with the Phenom and Phenom II, we had something to be proud of, so yeah once we had something that brought upon us shame and embarrassment: Bulldozer architecture, we became desperate and defensive.

However, this week has been a week to celebrate for AMD and its fans. Finally, we have an official revealing of Zen's performance running against Intel's best 8-core CPU, the i7-6900K Extreme Edition $1100 CPU, both clocked at 3GHz for the sake of apples-to-apples comparison and fairness, running the Blender benchmark, which is a 3D rendering bench that utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it, and both systems were running an RX480...and you want to know what the result was?

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/18/amd-zen-cpu/

Seems like today's AMD doesn't want to simply talk the talk anymore.

Granted, it's just 1 benchmark so far (at least an official one), so there's still much to be revealed, but it is the most promising info we've gotten to date.

Perhaps AMD fans can be proud once again, rather than being the incredibly and unreasonably defensive voices they have been, when in defeat.
 
Last edited:
I won't lie, this has been the case for over 6 years. AMD fans had to live with the Bullsh...dozer architecture and tried to find some way to be proud of it, which was impossible to do. Frustration set in, and all we could do is find specific multithreaded benchmarks that catered to the design, to find even 1 win we could brag about. It was a pathetic time having to deal with that, after an era that saw AMD at the top with the release of Athlon 64, when having an "FX" chip meant you had a badass beast in you gaming rig. Even after that with the Phenom and Phenom II, we had something to be proud of, so yeah once we had something that brought upon us shame and embarrassment: Bulldozer architecture, we became desperate and defensive.

However, this week has been a week to celebrate for AMD and its fans. Finally, we have an official revealing of Zen's performance running against one of Intel's best, the i7-6900K Extreme Edition $1100 CPU, both clocked at 3GHz for the sake of apples-to-apples comparison and fairness (both are also 8core/16thread CPU's), running the Blender benchmark, which is a 3D rendering bench that utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it, and both systems were running an RX480...and you want to know what the result was?

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/18/amd-zen-cpu/

Seems like today's AMD doesn't want to simply talk the talk anymore.

Granted, it's just 1 benchmark so far (at least an official one), so there's still much to be revealed, but it is the most promising info we've gotten to date.

Perhaps AMD fans can be proud once again, rather than being the incredibly and unreasonably defensive voices they are, when in defeat.


This old 2010 HP P7 AMD 4 Core K10 CPU, 8 GB ram Win 10 Insider test mule and daily driver with an SSD and d/GPU and sound on Windows 10 x64 dual booting another win 10 x64 activated stable OS on metal is getting a 6 core AMD FX 6300 and mainboard upgrade from reasonably inexpensive for the performance ebay scores later today when they get delivered but it's not a game box or heavy lifter /renderer /editor anyway .

For what I do in here with it ,that's all fine we have an SB i7 PC with a new decently strong Nvidia G force GTX gaming d/GPU and 650w PSU and 16GB of Ram for the heavy lifting and PC gaming here on Windows 10 14393.rs anyway .
 
Last edited:
I won't lie, this has been the case for over 6 years. AMD fans had to live with the Bullsh...dozer architecture and tried to find some way to be proud of it, which was impossible to do. Frustration set in, and all we could do is find specific multithreaded benchmarks that catered to the design, to find even 1 win we could brag about. It was a pathetic time having to deal with that, after an era that saw AMD at the top with the release of Athlon 64, when having an "FX" chip meant you had a badass beast in you gaming rig. Even after that with the Phenom and Phenom II, we had something to be proud of, so yeah once we had something that brought upon us shame and embarrassment: Bulldozer architecture, we became desperate and defensive.

However, this week has been a week to celebrate for AMD and its fans. Finally, we have an official revealing of Zen's performance running against Intel's best 8-core CPU, the i7-6900K Extreme Edition $1100 CPU, both clocked at 3GHz for the sake of apples-to-apples comparison and fairness, running the Blender benchmark, which is a 3D rendering bench that utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it, and both systems were running an RX480...and you want to know what the result was?

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/18/amd-zen-cpu/

Seems like today's AMD doesn't want to simply talk the talk anymore.

Granted, it's just 1 benchmark so far (at least an official one), so there's still much to be revealed, but it is the most promising info we've gotten to date.

Perhaps AMD fans can be proud once again, rather than being the incredibly and unreasonably defensive voices they have been, when in defeat.
Thanks for your well-written reply. I DO want AMD to succeed, either to give us all more choices, or to keep Intel and Nvidia's prices down. I just get tired of AMD and their legions talking smack as they're laying on the canvas.

The Zen benchmark is interesting- but as you said- is only one. Another poster on that article's forum brought up a good point as well: Zen beat the i7-6900k by one half second in Blender, but the article failed to mention how long the test was. Half a second in a five second test is fairly impressive; in a five minute test it is practically a tie. Still, it is encouraging.

I can't get excited about any of AMD's claims until they start delivering products that live up to their own hype. They have cried wolf too many times for me- but I hope they can redeem themselves for everyone's benefit.
 
Thanks for your well-written reply. I DO want AMD to succeed, either to give us all more choices, or to keep Intel and Nvidia's prices down. I just get tired of AMD and their legions talking smack as they're laying on the canvas.

The Zen benchmark is interesting- but as you said- is only one. Another poster on that article's forum brought up a good point as well: Zen beat the i7-6900k by one half second in Blender, but the article failed to mention how long the test was. Half a second in a five second test is fairly impressive; in a five minute test it is practically a tie. Still, it is encouraging.

I can't get excited about any of AMD's claims until they start delivering products that live up to their own hype. They have cried wolf too many times for me- but I hope they can redeem themselves for everyone's benefit.

Thanks for the compliment and yeah, that's the problem with having had an incompetent marketing department in the past. Reputation = destroyed. So, even with a new team and much more intelligent marketing, they will still need to prove themselves in order to rebuild their image. I, personally, have faith as what I've been seeing, hearing, reading, all adds up to extremely promising tech, which, with this benchmark, provides a teeny bit more validity to the technological potential this design in particular seemingly has. Again, this could just be the one benchmark that AMD seems to perform well in, but at least they are doing apples to apples, rather than in the past where only a specific benchmark, e.g., Cinebench multi-thread would reveal an AMD FX as a competitive performer. At least we know here, that both CPU's have 8 cores with 8 virtuals, both clocked at 3GHz.

You do make a good point about the Blender test time, so I found a video of the actual demo being tested, where we can see the results in real time.


What is interesting is that, although the test was started at the same time for both chips, it seems, at first, that the Intel chip has the lead as it renders the first part of the image a split second faster than the AMD part. It seems to be a tie heading through the midway point, but once it heads into the second half or perhaps even final quarter, it's as if the Intel chip either starts to struggle or the AMD chip is able to simply maintain a higher level of consistency throughout the entire duration of the task as it starts to overtake the Intel part.

From what I could gather, it took approximately 20 seconds for both systems to complete the benchmark, with the Zen finishing approximately a half second faster than the i7-6900K. These are just approximations as I do not have a stop watch or know when the mouse click happened exactly. With that said, a half second, meaning it finished in 19.5sec vs 20sec is approximately 2.5%

That value should obviously be taken with a grain, but the fact that it did indeed outperform the Intel chip at all, remains incredibly exciting for the future of CPU design. Zen is going to push Intel to improve, which will push back on AMD, continuing the cycle of innovation in the CPU space, which has become, perhaps, more stagnant than it could have been, as AMD hasn't been in the game for a while. Yes, there have been updates to the Core design ever since Conroe in 2006, but they're all still based on the same design foundation. AMD tried to break this chain by taking a chance on a new design in Bulldozer, but since it failed, Intel had no need to redesign from the ground up. Now, with AMD's redesign, which, in it's first iteration, seems very promising, even vs Intel's newest(er) design, all while having Zen+ cores in the works already, then we could be looking at some significant progress in the up and coming years. Perhaps Intel will come out with a new design and surprise us all.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there have been updates to the Core design ever since Conroe in 2006, but they're all still based on the same design foundation. AMD tried to break this chain by taking a chance on a new design in Bulldozer, but since it failed, Intel had no need to redesign from the ground up. Now, with AMD's redesign, which, in it's first iteration, seems very promising, even vs Intel's newest(er) design, all while having Zen+ cores in the works already, then maybe we'll see a similar thing happen with Intel sometime in the near future.

It goes much more behind. Conroe is based on Pentium M that was based on Pentium II/III that was based on Pentium Pro. So Intel is essentially now using modified Pentium Pro. Pentium 4 was total redesign but Core series CPU's are not.
 
From what I could gather, it took approximately 20 seconds for both systems to complete the benchmark, with the Zen finishing approximately a half second faster than the i7-6900K. These are just approximations as I do not have a stop watch or know when the mouse click happened exactly. With that said, a half second, meaning it finished in 19.5sec vs 20sec is approximately 2.5%

That value should obviously be taken with a grain, but the fact that it did indeed outperform the Intel chip at all, remains incredibly exciting for the future of CPU design.


What is interesting is that, although the test was started at the same time for both chips, it seems, at first, that the Intel chip has the lead as it renders the first part of the image a split second faster than the AMD part. It seems to be a tie heading through the midway point, but once it heads into the second half or perhaps even final quarter, it's as if the Intel chip either starts to struggle or the AMD chip is able to simply maintain a higher level of consistency throughout the entire duration of the task as it starts to overtake the Intel part.

From what I could gather, it took approximately 20 seconds for both systems to complete the benchmark, with the Zen finishing approximately a half second faster than the i7-6900K. These are just approximations as I do not have a stop watch or know when the mouse click happened exactly. With that said, a half second, meaning it finished in 19.5sec vs 20sec is approximately 2.5%

That value should obviously be taken with a grain, but the fact that it did indeed outperform the Intel chip at all, remains incredibly exciting for the future of CPU design. Zen is going to push Intel to improve, which will push back on AMD, continuing the cycle of innovation in the CPU space, which has become, perhaps, more stagnant than it could have been, as AMD hasn't been in the game for a while. Yes, there have been updates to the Core design ever since Conroe in 2006, but they're all still based on the same design foundation. AMD tried to break this chain by taking a chance on a new design in Bulldozer, but since it failed, Intel had no need to redesign from the ground up. Now, with AMD's redesign, which, in it's first iteration, seems very promising, even vs Intel's newest(er) design, all while having Zen+ cores in the works already, then we could be looking at some significant progress in the up and coming years. Perhaps Intel will come out with a new design and surprise us all.
Thanks for the compliment and yeah, that's the problem with having had an incompetent marketing department in the past. Reputation = destroyed. So, even with a new team and much more intelligent marketing, they will still need to prove themselves in order to rebuild their image. I, personally, have faith as what I've been seeing, hearing, reading, all adds up to extremely promising tech, which, with this benchmark, provides a teeny bit more validity to the technological potential this design in particular seemingly has. Again, this could just be the one benchmark that AMD seems to perform well in, but at least they are doing apples to apples, rather than in the past where only a specific benchmark, e.g., Cinebench multi-thread would reveal an AMD FX as a competitive performer. At least we know here, that both CPU's have 8 cores with 8 virtuals, both clocked at 3GHz.

You do make a good point about the Blender test time, so I found a video of the actual demo being tested, where we can see the results in real time.


What is interesting is that, although the test was started at the same time for both chips, it seems, at first, that the Intel chip has the lead as it renders the first part of the image a split second faster than the AMD part. It seems to be a tie heading through the midway point, but once it heads into the second half or perhaps even final quarter, it's as if the Intel chip either starts to struggle or the AMD chip is able to simply maintain a higher level of consistency throughout the entire duration of the task as it starts to overtake the Intel part.

From what I could gather, it took approximately 20 seconds for both systems to complete the benchmark, with the Zen finishing approximately a half second faster than the i7-6900K. These are just approximations as I do not have a stop watch or know when the mouse click happened exactly. With that said, a half second, meaning it finished in 19.5sec vs 20sec is approximately 2.5%

That value should obviously be taken with a grain, but the fact that it did indeed outperform the Intel chip at all, remains incredibly exciting for the future of CPU design. Zen is going to push Intel to improve, which will push back on AMD, continuing the cycle of innovation in the CPU space, which has become, perhaps, more stagnant than it could have been, as AMD hasn't been in the game for a while. Yes, there have been updates to the Core design ever since Conroe in 2006, but they're all still based on the same design foundation. AMD tried to break this chain by taking a chance on a new design in Bulldozer, but since it failed, Intel had no need to redesign from the ground up. Now, with AMD's redesign, which, in it's first iteration, seems very promising, even vs Intel's newest(er) design, all while having Zen+ cores in the works already, then we could be looking at some significant progress in the up and coming years. Perhaps Intel will come out with a new design and surprise us all.
I'll be impressed if Zen manages to just come close to the i7-6900K- as long as it's not in the same price range, of course. I'm looking forward to Zen's official release (along with Vega), but I'll ignore the hype and theoretical performance debates. If Vega can give the GTX 10xx series a run for its money, I'll certainly consider one, as I'm about ready for a GPU upgrade... but only if it doesn't double as a power-hungry space heater and white noise generator. ;-)

As for CPUs, I really haven't felt the need to replaced my i5-3570K @ 4.2 GHz since mine is a gaming rig. However, it won't last forever and I'd like to have AMD as a competitive second option.
 
To be fair, recent Intel generations haven't showed significant performance improvement year over year. I still consider my 3770k high end. To this day I still cannot justify the cost of a CPU upgrade and it's going on 4 years. What happened to the days of 4 year old tech being obsolete?
the rich got richer and we let it, I'm praying for AMD coz without even competition between the two companies prices will continue going up as CPU's get better, coz there are no other options and they know it. $2000 a chip later people will pay 3 times the cost of a motherboard on a CPU that cost a little more to make than the $350 CPU of the same batch of silicon
 
...........right now it takes nearly 2 AMD cores and a higher clock to nearly equal a single Intel core lets .
My curisity decided to test that a bit, took Cinebench R15 which has the stock 4.4ghz 4770k single thread score of 165 in it and I ran the normal CPU render with only 2 threads enabled, my FX-8300 is only running at 4.2ghz atm but it still scored a even 200, so not as bad as that claim.

I am prob gonna skip first gen of Zen and see what the refresh looks like. I went FX purely for the multitasking capabilities. In my budget I couldn't render a video while playing a game while recording gameplay on a i3, you can on a i7 (really well actually) and you can on the 8 core FX chips ( <3 core affinity) and in a lot of games I see no FPS drop while doing all of that so it works for me.
 
Back