AMD’s Lisa Su: high-end "Zen" x86 cores set to be available in 2016

[marldorthegreat]

x86 in this context also means x86-64

 

edit: ninja'ed

Could you explain what "x86" is please

[HellaflushMcSwaggins]

Could you explain what "x86" is please

32 bit i think

[Humbug]

Could you explain what "x86" is please

an industry standard set of instructions which computer CPUs understand, software uses this instructions to communicate with the CPU. Both Intel and AMD support this instruction set which is Why the same software works on both without having to be recompiled.

[patrickjp93]

The reason AMD has a chance here is that Intel too has hit a brick wall. Since Sandy Bridge Intel has struggled to improve performance. The last big game changer was Sandy Bridge and that's almost four years ago.

Not at all true. Performance gains of the past were part IPC improvement, part clock improvement (adding cores aside). Intel has been gaining 5% IPC since CORE began. We just hit the  clock barrier for silicon on such large, dense circuits. Intel has made great strides in hardware-accelerated virtualization and has added computational features the scientific world has asked for time and again, all the while narrowing its power envelope. Now it's all about flops, graphics, wireless charging, IOT, and other new frontiers since Intel has little else to improve. 

 

AMD has a lot of ground to make up. Let's hold our horses until the chips are down. Optimism is one thing: blind belief is another. It'll be 14nm/10nm vs. 16nm, and it will be Intel's 2.5+ TFlop SOC with gen 9 graphics vs. some form of GCN 1.2/3 (I forget which is slotted) where the only heterogeneous difference is equal-citizen scheduling (comes with Carrizo).

 

Zen is up against a raging dragon. I maintain cautious optimism for AMD, but let's stop pretending it's going to be so easy for Keller to walk up and slap Intel clear off its throne.

[patrickjp93]

an industry standard set of instructions which computer CPUs understand, software uses this instructions to communicate with the CPU. Both Intel and AMD support this instruction set which is Why the same software works on both without having to be recompiled.

More specifically, it's an instruction set architecture co-developed by Intel and IBM which Intel holds near exclusive rights over (apart from IA 64, which AMD beat them to). It is the standard assembly language desktop and laptop applications are compiled to. It's a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture with a very rich instruction set mainly useful for scientific computing, but highly versatile. Instructions are executed out of order and in parallel where possible to gain more throughput.

[patrickjp93]

After Bulldozer I am very skeptic towards AMD's CPU releases.

This CPU might be great, and it might suck really hard. Only time will tell but I recommend everyone to keep your expectations low.

It won't suck with Keller at the helm implementing SMT, but I maintain very cautious optimism as to whether he will be able to slap Skylake clear off the performance throne. Not to mention Cannonlake will be launching late 2016 as well.

[GoodBytes]

Could you explain what "x86" is please

x86 is just the name of the currently used architect, the standard one used in desktops and laptop computer today.

It was created by Intel. It could have been called "Intel Ultimate CPU architecture 9000!!!!!", but they decided to call it x86, because it was part of the name of the early model of such CPU, where you have 186, 286, 386, 486, at which point Intel decided to change things up with Pentium name, and not continue with 586, 686, and so on.

AMD64, is the add-on architecture to x86 architecture which bring new operation code for the processor to do things faster, and new security features, as well as provide 64-bit long instructions support, and no longer limited to 32-bit ones (and that is what 32-bit and 64-bit means, it's just how long an instruction length can be. If we wanted, we could make a 128-bit or 1024-bit CPU even.. it will cost a lot of money, and for our usage provide no advantage beside larger disk space, and RAM, and more precision in calculations. Ideally, we want more instructions to do thing faster than before, but the increase "bit" value doesn't mean anything. You can check out the Nuon, a game console that flopped more than the Atari Jaguar, with it's true 128-bit CPU (and not hacked up one in the Jaguar)

AMD64 was made by AMD.

Intel licenses AMD64 from AMD to make it's 64-bit enabled CPUs.

So right now, AMD pays Intel for the x86 license, and Intel pays AMD for the AMD64.

Intel doesn't like the name "AMD64", because it has AMD in the name, so they are pushing "x86-64".

[The_Evenger]

sooooo new FX CPUs?

 

considering AMD's best FX cpu is $250, i say they really need to get back into the game. as long as they keep their amazing price/performance ratio, which is why people like me love them, they will sell. they just need to get some stronger stuff going, and support for stuff like PCI-e 3.

[vm'N]

More specifically, it's an instruction set architecture co-developed by Intel and IBM which Intel holds near exclusive rights over (apart from IA 64, which AMD beat them to). It is the standard assembly language desktop and laptop applications are compiled to. It's a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture with a very rich instruction set mainly useful for scientific computing, but highly versatile. Instructions are executed out of order and in parallel where possible to gain more throughput.

x86 is now a semi-open standard. Intel is only holding certain newer features of x86.

x86 can also be a in-order architecture.

[patrickjp93]

x86 is now a semi-open standard. Intel is only holding certain newer features of x86.

x86 can also be a in-order architecture.

Sorry, but who other than Intel, AMD, and VIA has a license/can add anything to it? It's far from being even semi-open.

 

Find me an in-order x86 processor.

[patrickjp93]

sooooo new FX CPUs?

 

considering AMD's best FX cpu is $250, i say they really need to get back into the game. as long as they keep their amazing price/performance ratio, which is why people like me love them, they will sell. they just need to get some stronger stuff going, and support for stuff like PCI-e 3.

They should jump to PCIe 4 since Skylake-E is headed there anyway.

[patrickjp93]

Intel doesn't like the name "AMD64", because it has AMD in the name, so they are pushing "x86-64".

They call their version EMT-64

[vm'N]

Sorry, but who other than Intel, AMD, and VIA has a license/can add anything to it? It's far from being even semi-open.

 

Find me an in-order x86 processor.

You might actually want to do some readups on what they are actually licensing...

The Intel atom used to be in-order.

My point was that x86 doesn't have to be OoO.

[Tola]

AMD CPU's high end haha  thats hilarious. Im jk don't take it seriously. It'll be interesting to see these

[patrickjp93]

You might actually want to do some readups on what they are actually licensing...

The Intel atom used to be in-order.

My point was that x86 doesn't have to be OoO.

And I quote "production, sales, distribution, and creative works" in regards to x86 ISA.

[vm'N]

And I quote "production, sales, distribution, and creative works" in regards to x86 ISA.

You are very sloppy to provide any kind of source.

[osbios]

Could you explain what "x86" is please

32 bit i think

x86 just means 8086 and anything upwards. 8086 was a 16bit CPU with 20 address bits. (1MiB memory)

The success of x86 CPUs is downward compatibility, including all its perversions.

Your 4770 or 8350 can still run "stone age" 8086 16-bit code. Or for the same reason still run in 32bit mode.

[SpaceCore]

The wait.. oh god the wait

[qepsilonp]

hopefully its good, im tired of staying on intel. i like to try a little bit of everything but that cant happen if the other party doesn't really have some compelling products. 

 

Tbh I wouldn't expect them to beat Intel or even provide the same amount of perfomance I think what we can expect is them to keep the current 6 and 8 core configs and increase there power.

The reason why I can say this is because AMD is either going to be on a 20 or 16nm process I'm not quite sure at the moment I hope 16nm while intel is going to be on a 10nm process by 2016 this means intel will be able to fit 60% more transistors on a chip.

BUT with the 16nm process AMD is going to be implementing FinFED transistors which will create less leakage and there for require less voltage to run and there for create less heat enabling AMD to ship the CPU's at higher clock speeds. And given there current architecture's properties we can expect them to over clock like man men as well maybe allowing overclockers to MAYBE push 6.5 to 7Ghz maybe a little more without the need for liquid nitrogen.

[qepsilonp]

Tbh I wouldn't expect them to beat Intel or even provide the same amount of performance I think what we can expect is them to keep the current 6 and 8 core configs and increase there power.

The reason why I can say this is because AMD is either going to be on a 20 or 16nm process I'm not quite sure at the moment I hope 16nm while intel is going to be on a 10nm process by 2016 this means intel will be able to fit 60% more transistors on a chip.

BUT with the 16nm process AMD is going to be implementing FinFED transistors which will create less leakage and there for require less voltage to run and there for create less heat enabling AMD to ship the CPU's at higher clock speeds. And given there current architecture's properties we can expect them to over clock like man men as well maybe allowing overclockers to MAYBE push 6.5 to 7Ghz maybe a little more without the need for liquid nitrogen.

 

Also you might expect them to come stock 5-5.5Ghz~ while unlike the FX 9560 will not pull an ungodly amount of wattage and produce an ungodly amount of heat. Intel it probably going to stay at just over the 4Ghz mark for the high end chips but with 60% more transistors they will still be more powerful. But the high end Intel chips will be expensive where as the high end AMD chips will probably be around the same price as the i5's and deliver similar performance. So basically where we are today for the most part.

But with DX12 on the way in 2015 and by late 2016 when these chips are supposed to be coming on the shelf's a lot of games will have implemented DX12 and 6 - 8 cores will makes sense, and the only advantages the i5's had over the FX8xxx and FX6xxx was that they had better per core performance which was better for games even the i5 4690k is only slightly better than the FX8350 in highly threaded applications and costs $50 - $60 more. This will force Intel to either chop the price  or increase the power of the mid / low performance CPU's.

And I consider the i5's to be mid range for Intel.

[sgloux3470]

After Bulldozer I am very skeptic towards AMD's CPU releases.

This CPU might be great, and it might suck really hard. Only time will tell but I recommend everyone to keep your expectations low.

They had amazing, competitive CPU's for years.  Does no one remember how shitty the Pentium 4's were?  If Intel could bounce back from that, there's no reason AMD couldn't come out with a more competitive option.  Their APU's are great as well for what they're meant for and only getting better.

 

They're not doing bad as a company, I don't think you'd be throwing money away buying stock although I doubt they'll blow everyones mind with Zen.  I think they'll just be a lot closer to intel's performance and continue offering better pricepoints. (Much like how they are in the GPU market with Nvidia.)

[Kingofpants]

Tbh I wouldn't expect them to beat Intel or even provide the same amount of perfomance I think what we can expect is them to keep the current 6 and 8 core configs and increase there power.

The reason why I can say this is because AMD is either going to be on a 20 or 16nm process I'm not quite sure at the moment I hope 16nm while intel is going to be on a 10nm process by 2016 this means intel will be able to fit 60% more transistors on a chip.

BUT with the 16nm process AMD is going to be implementing FinFED transistors which will create less leakage and there for require less voltage to run and there for create less heat enabling AMD to ship the CPU's at higher clock speeds. And given there current architecture's properties we can expect them to over clock like man men as well maybe allowing overclockers to MAYBE push 6.5 to 7Ghz maybe a little more without the need for liquid nitrogen.

Necroing 2 month old posts I see.

[Psykomantis00]

Umm, nobody's really using X86 now....

:lol: Wow, just wow. 

[qepsilonp]

They had amazing, competitive CPU's for years.  Does no one remember how shitty the Pentium 4's were?  If Intel could bounce back from that, there's no reason AMD couldn't come out with a more competitive option.  Their APU's are great as well for what they're meant for and only getting better.

 

They're not doing bad as a company, I don't think you'd be throwing money away buying stock although I doubt they'll blow everyones mind with Zen.  I think they'll just be a lot closer to intel's performance and continue offering better pricepoints. (Much like how they are in the GPU market with Nvidia.)

 

You do have to remember that Intel and AMD were an a similar manufacturing process size, while now Intel will be on a 10nm process by early mid 2016 and AMD will be on a 16nm... Maybe 20nm process by late 2016.

So no I don't see AMD catching up with Intel unless they deploy magic.

[Glenwing]

Please do not bump old posts.