Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
rattacko123

Zen is faster than Broadwell-E clock for clock

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I was, just wasn't paying attention to the price.

Well not many people ever bought those old FX chips, I'd imagine. They were fast, sure, but nothing you couldn't achieve by just OCing the crap out of a cheaper Athlon 64 chip or what have you.


For Sale - iPhone SE 32GB - Unlocked - Rose GoldSold

Spoiler

 

 

* Intel i7-4770K * ASRock Z97 Anniversary * 16GB RAM * 750w Seasonic Modular PSU *

* Crucial M4 128GB SSD (Primary) * Hitachi 500GB HDD (Secondary) *

* Gigabyte HD 7950 WF3 * SATA Blu-Ray Writer * Logitech g710+ * Windows 10 Pro x64 *

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zMeul said:

no, you are missing the point

because if you downclock, you get lower IPC and that is getting in the range of previous generation of Intel CPUs, like Haswell-E, for example - and that is what AMD needs to hide

 

also, Kabilake is just around the corner and will probably see an earlier release than ZEN - that's another IPC increase over Broadwell-E

 

so ... who's AMD kidding!?

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


Spoiler

Remember to quote me or tag me to get my attention in a post!

Spoiler

Yukuru (Main rig): R5 2400G | Noctua L9a | VTX R9 Nano 4GB | 2x8GB G-Skill Ripjaws DDR4-2800 (@2400MHz) | ASRock A300M-STX | 128GB Plextor M6s + 2TB Seagate FireCuda 2TB 5400RPM SSHD | Delta 120W Power brick (Thanks @iamdarkyoshi) | Custom Case (Build log| MSX

Spoiler

Blast From the Past (Disassembled and decommissioned as of the 7th of December, 2016, you will be missed): Asus A8Js | C2D T7200 @ 2GHz | Nvidia Go 7700 512MB DDR2 | 2x1GB DDR2-667 Kingston RAM | Hitachi TravelStar 5K160 160GB 5400 HDD | Win7 Pro

Spoiler

Laptop: MacBook Pro 13.3 inch late 2013 model i7-4558U (2C/4T @ 3.3GHz Turbo) Intel Iris 5100 graphics (1200MHz boosts) 8GB DDR3-1600 Soldered on 2560 x 1600 display (Looks very nice) Win7 Pro

Spoiler

Box (Brother's Rig): R5 1500X | Stock AMD Cooler | ASRock B450 Pro4 | Asus HD 7970 3GB Matrix Platinum | 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 | Crucial BX200 240GB | Aerocool Strike-X 500W | Win7 Home Premium

Spoiler

Spiky Box (Sister's Rig): G3258 | Cooler Master Seidon 120V V2 | Asus Z97 Sabertooth Mark I | Sapphire R9 290X 4GB Vapor-X | 2x4GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600 | 1TB Seagate Barracuda | Corsair CX600 | Aerocool Xpredator X3 Red/Gold edition (My old case) | MSX 

USEFUL LINKS:

PSU Whitelist | PSU Tier List F@H stats | Mining Ethereum

Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing. Since as the chips keep getting smaller I've been told it will get harder and harder to milk more efficiency out of it. This combined with the idea that we're not far from hitting a cap with what's achievable with Silicon (from what I'm told) I can imagine that unless there's some sort of breakthrough in what CPUs are made of that getting a 14-7nm CPU is about as far as many people will need to go for a long time. 

 

That said, It is sounding to be a long-term investment what my next CPU will be. I hope I can make the right choice when the time does come. Holding out as long as possible and my i5 3450 has been a freaking pleasure to rely on for the past 4 years. It's actually kind of weird that after all this time I'm still not in a huge rush to upgrade, I mean my CPU was a sort of "entry level" to quad cores when I got it. Unless I'm running a server, I honestly don't think it matters who I chose because the performance level is just growing so slowly. It sure is a good time to be a low-end user like me. I can't wait to see what Zen prices look like at entry level 4-6 core stuff.

 

 


DZ77SL-50K LGA 1155 Motherboard 

EVGA 650GQ PSU  

Intel i5 3450 CPU  

16GB DDR3 RAM 

MSI RX580 (4gb)  

240GB Sandisk G25 SSD   

Antec VSK 4000E Mid Tower Case (with DIY window!)  

CRYORIG M9i Mini CPU Cooler + dual Aigo 120mm white LED ring case fans

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, iDeFecZx said:

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

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


I don't read the reply to my posts anymore so don't bother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feels zen is going to have a low stock clock,  but don't worry cos in 5 years we will have the 5ghz skew. The fx8150 was only 3.5ghz and that evolved all the way to the 4.7ghz fx9590 :D

 

Also the 10 core zen that I have does 5.3ghz on phase so that is faster than most 6950x's


Rig Specs:

AMD Threadripper 3999WX@4.4Ghz

Asus Zenith II Extreme

Sapphire 5900XXXT Quadfire

G.Skill Ripheartout X OC 5000Mhz C12 DDR4 4X8GB  

Super Flower Power Leadex 2000W Psu's X2

Harrynowl's 775/771 OC and mod guide: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/232325-lga775-core2duo-core2quad-overclocking-guide/ http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/365998-mod-lga771-to-lga775-cpu-modification-tutorial/

ProKoN haswell/DC OC guide: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/41234-intel-haswell-4670k-4770k-overclocking-guide/

 

"desperate for just a bit more money to watercool, the titan x would be thankful" Carter -2016

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nena360 said:

Cinebench gets many updates? :o

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


Stuff:  i7 7700k @ (dat nibba succ) | ASRock Z170M OC Formula | G.Skill TridentZ 3600 c16 | EKWB 1080 @ 2100 mhz  |  Acer X34 Predator | R4 | EVGA 1000 P2 | 1080mm Radiator Custom Loop | HD800 + Audio-GD NFB-11 | 850 Evo 1TB | 840 Pro 256GB | 3TB WD Blue | 2TB Barracuda

Hwbot: http://hwbot.org/user/lays/ 

FireStrike 980 ti @ 1800 Mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3183338 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/11574089

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


Rig Specs:

AMD Threadripper 3999WX@4.4Ghz

Asus Zenith II Extreme

Sapphire 5900XXXT Quadfire

G.Skill Ripheartout X OC 5000Mhz C12 DDR4 4X8GB  

Super Flower Power Leadex 2000W Psu's X2

Harrynowl's 775/771 OC and mod guide: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/232325-lga775-core2duo-core2quad-overclocking-guide/ http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/365998-mod-lga771-to-lga775-cpu-modification-tutorial/

ProKoN haswell/DC OC guide: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/41234-intel-haswell-4670k-4770k-overclocking-guide/

 

"desperate for just a bit more money to watercool, the titan x would be thankful" Carter -2016

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VI EXTREME
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


Needs money for car parts :P

 

System specs: Core i7 9700k, Dark Rock Pro 4 , MSI Z390 PRO, 16GB CORSAIR VENGENCE DDR4 3000, EVGA GTX 1070 FTW, Corsair AX860, Seagate 1TB, Sandisk 240GB SSD, Corsair 400c

 

My Steam Profile (from SteamDB)

 

  • Worth: £654 (£221 with sales)
  • Games owned: 62
  • Games played: 52 (83%)
  • Hours on record: 2,980.7h

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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....


CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 840 Series 128GB | 1 x Seagate 1TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Seasonic M12II Evo 620W | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

 

GTX 1060 vs RX 480 (old)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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


 Bottleneck Guide 

  ⇨ PSU Tier List 2.0    ⇨ PSU White List ⇦    GPU Tier List     CPU Tier List 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VI EXTREME
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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


 Bottleneck Guide 

  ⇨ PSU Tier List 2.0    ⇨ PSU White List ⇦    GPU Tier List     CPU Tier List 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).


CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VI EXTREME
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...


| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 5.0ghz - 1.3v  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X Trio 2ghz OC  RAM: 16GB T-Force Delta RGB 3000mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Rift S

 

Read: My opinions on VR in it's current state, should YOU buy into it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 


 Bottleneck Guide 

  ⇨ PSU Tier List 2.0    ⇨ PSU White List ⇦    GPU Tier List     CPU Tier List 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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


 Bottleneck Guide 

  ⇨ PSU Tier List 2.0    ⇨ PSU White List ⇦    GPU Tier List     CPU Tier List 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :P


| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 5.0ghz - 1.3v  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X Trio 2ghz OC  RAM: 16GB T-Force Delta RGB 3000mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Rift S

 

Read: My opinions on VR in it's current state, should YOU buy into it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :P

Well...we don't know LOL xD 


 Bottleneck Guide 

  ⇨ PSU Tier List 2.0    ⇨ PSU White List ⇦    GPU Tier List     CPU Tier List 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, keNNySOC said:

Well...we don't know LOL xD 

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 :P lol)


| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 5.0ghz - 1.3v  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X Trio 2ghz OC  RAM: 16GB T-Force Delta RGB 3000mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Rift S

 

Read: My opinions on VR in it's current state, should YOU buy into it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...


 Bottleneck Guide 

  ⇨ PSU Tier List 2.0    ⇨ PSU White List ⇦    GPU Tier List     CPU Tier List 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :P


| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 5.0ghz - 1.3v  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X Trio 2ghz OC  RAM: 16GB T-Force Delta RGB 3000mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Rift S

 

Read: My opinions on VR in it's current state, should YOU buy into it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×