Zen is faster than Broadwell-E clock for clock

[Jumper118]

2 minutes ago, Lays said:

Cinebench is very dependent on background processes, OS, priority of cinebench, RAM and things like that.  So that could very well play a part in the gap you saw

And on amd systems the power saving features make a massive difference too. 

[Morgan MLGman]

16 hours ago, keNNySOC said:

Finally AMD realizes,use freaking SMT instead of CMT

 

Hopefully it has good single core performance benchmarks

This entire thread is about single core performance benchmarks... Its single core performance is faster than Broadwell (intel 5th gen) when clocked equally according to AMD's test on the showcase, so it's slightly behind Skylake.

[iDeFecZx]

2 hours ago, ApolloFury said:

How is it handicapped? Both are running at the same clock speed. Overclocking them is a different story.

Because thats slower than its stock clock speeds?

[othertomperson]

19 hours ago, Paragon_X said:

Why you say that the 6900K is handicapped, they both run on 3.0Ghz. even the Engineering sample was running at 3.2/3.7 Boost (same as stock 6900). Its clearly an IPC benchmark. and the results are exciting, maybe some competition atlast.

IPC really matters in single threaded applications. It's nice to have in applications that use all 8 cores, but ultimately Bulldozer would have been fine if games used all 8 cores consistently, but they didn't and they still don't. For this reason the per core performance is what's actually important, not the IPC as such and AMD's response to this is to knock a whole gigahertz off of the single-core boost clock speed of the 6900K. If they had clocked both to 4.0GHz and ran a single core test and their Zen processor still won then I would be impressed, but something tells me that they wouldn't have beaten Intel in such a test.

 

I'm glad that they have improved their IPC so much. It troubles me that they needed to handicap an Intel product in order to demonstrate it, and that they are using such smoke and mirror tactics again. Ultimately if Zen is as good as AMD claim it'll come down to how likely each CPU is to overclock compared with Intel's as to which you should buy. With any luck the best thing to come from this would be Intel not selling i5s locked to 2.2GHz any more.

 

6 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

So you're saying they should run the 6900k at full turbo speed and the Zen CPU at stock. Definitely fair.

"Full turbo", that's another word for stock. The AMD CPU will turbo too. If Intel's 8-core at stock is noticeably better than AMD's 8-core at stock and that isn't the narrative they want to spin, why is underclocking the Intel until AMD wins acceptable? Could you imagine the reaction if Nvidia or Intel did this with an AMD product? But AMD are always given the benefit of the doubt when they pull shit like this.

[PCGuy_5960]

12 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Has AMD ever put a consumer CPU at that price tag?  The highest I've seen was a few hundred more for a 9590.  Opterons are what go for 800ish+.

Their Bulldozer CPUs, just couldn't be priced that high as they were worse than Intel's offerings... If Zen is BETTER than Intel's current offerings, they could do anything they want with pricing.... 

And $800 is $200 cheaper than the 6900K with which Zen is competing... So....

[Guest SkyFall]

20 hours ago, iDeFecZx said:

So for the AMD CPU to be as fast, the Intel one need to be handicapped?

Since the CPU is an engineering sample, I think there are thermal and power limitations at this time which doesn't allow the new CPU to clock higher.
But this will change.

[PRTI]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

This entire thread is about single core performance benchmarks... Its single core performance is faster than Broadwell (intel 5th gen) when clocked equally according to AMD's test on the showcase, so it's slightly behind Skylake.

Great,they finally figured they will not come close to Intel if they use CMT and crappy single core performance

[Morgan MLGman]

20 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

Great,they finally figured they will not come close to Intel if they use CMT and crappy single core performance

But they figured that out long time ago, it's not about coming close to Intel, those architectures are not better or worse, they're different. You need to understand that in gaming, CMT is inferior to SMT, however in some cases, heavy multi-core ones CMT is the superior design. Look at Cinebench scores, My old FX-8350 was easily beating an i7-3770K at stock, both CPUs are from the same "era". Note that 8350's MSRP was 199$, while 3770K's MSRP was 313$. See the difference? CMT allowed for a cheaper production of a more powerful overall CPU as proven by Cinebench scores. Obviously though, games did not "like" CMT and thus, Intel was the choice of a vast majority of gamers.

[PRTI]

10 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

But they figured that out long time ago, it's not about coming close to Intel, you need to understand that in gaming, CMT is inferior to SMT, however in some cases, heavy multi-core ones CMT is the superior design. Look at Cinebench scores, My old FX-8350 was easily beating an i7-3770K at stock, both CPUs are from the same "era". Note that 8350's MSRP was 199$, while 3770K's MSRP was 313$. See the difference? CMT allowed for a cheaper production of a, more powerful overall, CPU. Obviously though, games did not "like" CMT and thus, Intel was the choice of a vast majority of gamers.

Its not powerful overall...

 

AMD - Content/Little bit of gaming

Intel - Gaming/Little bit of content

 

But you can do both on both CPU's well

 

Depends what you want,for heavy content creation you surely are not gonna buy a FX,but a Intel 6-8 core monster,back then they were good for the price,now there simply outdated and dead,were looking at the presence not the past

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, keNNySOC said:

Its not powerful overall...

 

AMD - Content/Little bit of gaming

Intel - Gaming/Little bit of content

 

Depends what you want,for heavy content creation you surely are not gonna buy a FX,but a Intel 6-8 core monster,back then they were good for the price,now there simply outdated and dead,were looking at the presence not the past

By powerful overall, I mean multi-threaded performance. 3770K was a bad example, but look here:

Would you buy i5-4690K or the FX-8350 for gaming? The answer is rather obvious (provided you can afford it, of course)

Now look here: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8350-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K/1489vs2432

 

Userbenchmark proves that multi-threaded wise, FX-8350 is 7 to 10% faster (depending on the overclock) overall (multithreaded).

[i_build_nanosuits]

22 hours ago, iDeFecZx said:

So for the AMD CPU to be as fast, the Intel one need to be handicapped?

exactly...the AMD CPU is probably using overclocked to 4000mhz state of the art DDR4 RAM and an intel NVMe SSD, where as the intel machine is probably running 1600mhz DDR3L RAM and an old ass 5400RPM HDD they found in the basement or something...

[PRTI]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

By powerful overall, I mean multi-threaded performance. 3770K was a bad example, but look here:

Would you buy i5-4690K or the FX-8350 for gaming? The answer is rather obvious (provided you can afford it, of course)

Now look here: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8350-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K/1489vs2432

 

Userbenchmark proves that multi-threaded wise, FX-8350 is 7 to 10% faster (depending on the overclock) overall (multithreaded).

Oh,i though you meant overall in the world,CMT is bad for gaming we all know that BUT its up to you do you want more performance in gaming,or more performance in multithreading operations 

[PRTI]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

exactly...the AMD CPU is probably using overclocked to 4000mhz state of the art DDR4 RAM and an intel NVMe SSD, where as the intel machine is probably running 1600mhz DDR3L RAM and an old ass 5400RPM HDD they found in the basement or something...

We don't know...but companies will do anything to make there product look good

[i_build_nanosuits]

8 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

By powerful overall, I mean multi-threaded performance. 3770K was a bad example, but look here:

Would you buy i5-4690K or the FX-8350 for gaming? The answer is rather obvious (provided you can afford it, of course)

Now look here: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8350-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K/1489vs2432

 

Userbenchmark proves that multi-threaded wise, FX-8350 is 7 to 10% faster (depending on the overclock) overall (multithreaded).

it also prove that the core i5 is 55% faster in single-threaded speed, 64% faster in quad-threaded loads (AKA most games fall in this category) and 39% faster overall...what is a potential 7% better integer multi-threaded performance compared to those stats i provided? and what about those 4 slow ass FPU on that thing? or the 220W power consumption from the wall? or the lack of PCIe Gen 3 support?

[PRTI]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

it also prove that it's 55% faster in single-threaded speed, 64% faster in quad-threaded loads and 39% faster overall...what is a potential 7% better integer multi-threaded performance compared to those stats i provided? and what about those 4 slow ass FPU on that thing? or the 220W power consumption from the wall? or the lack of PCIe Gen 3 support?

Well...we don't know LOL  

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, keNNySOC said:

Well...we don't know LOL  

not talking about Zen in this post...talking about the vishera piece of trash AMD came up with 5 years ago

( and that i had the missfortune to own BTW lol)

[PRTI]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

not talking about Zen in this post...talking about the vishera piece of trash AMD came up with 5 years ago

Ik...you said

 

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

what is a potential 7% better integer multi-threaded performance

I said we don't know...

[i_build_nanosuits]

8 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

Ik...you said

 

I said we don't know...

i meant to say: ''how important is a +7% multi-threaded throughput in a best case scenario on the AMD FX, as compared to the intel that has tremendoudsly better performance in anything that use less than 7 heavy-threads'' sorry

[SpaceGhostC2C]

12 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

Oh,i though you meant overall in the world,CMT is bad for gaming we all know that BUT its up to you do you want more performance in gaming,or more performance in multithreading operations 

Exactly. I ended up getting an FX even though I knew I'd take a hit in games and other tasks because I needed the multi-core performance for work (and I don't even mean cinebench-type of multicore, but trully parallel, computer-kidnapping computations). Intel had better performing CPUs even in that area, but at a substantially higher cost (only the most powerful quad-cores and the 6/8 cores would do).

My first fear after reading that AMD would move to SMT was that, while they could perhaps become competitive with Intel again in the mainstream market, we would lose the cheap computational alternative the FXs were providing. If the two lineups get too similar it will all boil down to settling for consumer/gamer CPUs or paying big money for "extreme" type CPUs, regardless of which brand you go for...

[PRTI]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Exactly. I ended up getting an FX even though I knew I'd take a hit in games and other tasks because I needed the multi-core performance for work (and I don't even mean cinebench-type of multicore, but trully parallel, computer-kidnapping computations). Intel had better performing CPUs even in that area, but at a substantially higher cost (only the most powerful quad-cores and the 6/8 cores would do).

My first fear after reading that AMD would move to SMT was that, while they could perhaps become competitive with Intel again in the mainstream market, we would lose the cheap computational alternative the FXs were providing. If the two lineups get too similar it will all boil down to settling for consumer/gamer CPUs or paying big money for "extreme" type CPUs, regardless of which brand you go for...

Do you even dark web bro?  

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, keNNySOC said:

Do you even dark web bro?  

Haha! I only meant it as in "my program is running, so it takes 3 seconds from when I move the mouse until the cursor responds"  

[Morgan MLGman]

50 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

it also prove that the core i5 is 55% faster in single-threaded speed, 64% faster in quad-threaded loads (AKA most games fall in this category) and 39% faster overall...what is a potential 7% better integer multi-threaded performance compared to those stats i provided? and what about those 4 slow ass FPU on that thing? or the 220W power consumption from the wall? or the lack of PCIe Gen 3 support?

I am talking here solely about the flaws and advantages of CMT design when compared to SMT, read my previous posts:

 

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

But they figured that out long time ago, it's not about coming close to Intel, those architectures are not better or worse, they're different. You need to understand that in gaming, CMT is inferior to SMT, however in some cases, heavy multi-core ones CMT is the superior design. Look at Cinebench scores, My old FX-8350 was easily beating an i7-3770 at stock, both CPUs are from the same "era". Note that 8350's MSRP was 199$, while 3770's MSRP was over 300$. See the difference? CMT allowed for a cheaper production of a more powerful overall CPU as proven by Cinebench scores. Obviously though, games did not "like" CMT and thus, Intel was the choice of a vast majority of gamers.

 

56 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

By powerful overall, I mean multi-threaded performance. 3770K was a bad example, but look here:

Would you buy i5-4690K or the FX-8350 for gaming? The answer is rather obvious (provided you can afford it, of course)

Now look here: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8350-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K/1489vs2432

 

Userbenchmark proves that multi-threaded wise, FX-8350 is 7 to 10% faster (depending on the overclock) overall (multithreaded).

And that is an advantage of CMT which can be utilized in servers and workstations, you can produce a cheaper, but more powerful multithreaded CPU with lower singlethreaded performance, some workloads don't benefit from that.

 

Not talking here what's better to buy and about gaming. btw. PCI gen3 support doesn't really mean anything if you're running single or dual GPU setups, really. It's a good thing to have it, but it doesn't impact performance in a noticeable way. I'm not even talking about AMD vs Intel, I'm talking about CMT vs SMT

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I am talking here solely about the flaws and advantages of CMT design when compared to SMT, read my previous posts:

 

And that is an advantage of CMT which can be utilized in servers and workstations, you can produce a cheaper, but more powerful multithreaded CPU with lower singlethreaded performance, some workloads don't benefit from that.

Agree...but the bulldozer/piledriver architecture should have stayed in the opteron line...marketting it as an attractive ''FX'' branding that would appeal to gamers in a black and red box is just plain wrong from the get go IMHO.

[Sintezza]

18 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

but the bulldozer/piledriver architecture should have stayed in the opteron line...marketting it as an attractive ''FX'' branding that would appeal to gamers in a black and red box is just plain wrong from the get go IMHO.

Yeah the CMT design was exaly brilliant for the server market.

But for the home desktop user not so much, since software that the general home user would use wasnt optimized.

And most likely never will be.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

8 minutes ago, Sintezza said:

Yeah the CMT design was exaly brilliant for the server market.

But for the home desktop user not so much, since software that the general home user would use wasnt optimized.

And most likely never will be.

From what we've seen so far Zen seem to be a lot better...if they can deliver this product in a slightly faster clocked quad-core flavor for a little less money than the intel counterpart this could be very interesting...it's just sad that it took so long, now intel has had time to increase the average price of the CPU's and now AMD will just price it accordingly in regards to performance and intel's pricing...

Intel had kept the same pricing for the last 3 or 4 generations prior to haswell...but the latest stuff skylake and broadwell has seen prices increase...so it took amd just a couple years too long.