AMD Zen faster than 6900K in Blender !!?!?

[FPS-Russia]

[Energycore]

nah

[FPS-Russia]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

nah

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/amd-zen-performance-details-release-date/

 

And video is real test.

[xAcid9]

I don't care about Blender, give me gaming figures.

[AlphaPolack]

Only based on IPC...

 

AND when the Intel chip is UNDERCLOCKED, and not running at its native frequency......

 

Let AMD drop a Zen chip that will match INTEL at 4.5, 4.6 etc... Then AMD may have a chance....

 

If Zen can't do 4.4ghz + advantage intel, and AMD will have to cut the price.

If it can. Then it will be a whole new chapter for control.

 

So wait for release... As AMD fans should be used to waiting... Jus' Sayn'

[FPS-Russia]

Just now, AlphaPolack said:

Only based on IPC...

 

AND when the Intel chip is UNDERCLOCKED, and not running at its native frequency......

 

Let AMD drop a Zen chip that will match INTEL at 4.5, 4.6 etc... Then AMD may have a chance....

 

If Zen can't do 4.4ghz + advantage intel, and AMD will have to cut the price.

If it can. Then it will be a whole new chapter for control.

 

So wait for release... As AMD fans should be used to waiting... Jus' Sayn'

Zen is faster per clock than Broadwell-E.

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, FPS-Russia said:

Zen is faster per clock than Broadwell-E.

At one test, preproduction...

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, FPS-Russia said:

I see bias here.

I see over-hyper here as well.

[AlphaPolack]

Just now, FPS-Russia said:

Zen is faster per clock than Broadwell-E.

Did you even read?

 

If Zen (and only IF ) can reach the speeds the 6800k runs at natively , not even looking at overclocking.. Intel still comes out on top. 

 

The only way AMD wins is they have to tie one of Intel's arms behind It's back. Gimp the chip

[FPS-Russia]

1 minute ago, AlphaPolack said:

Did you even read?

 

If Zen (and only IF ) can reach the speeds the 6800k runs at natively , not even looking at overclocking.. Intel still comes out on top. 

 

The only way AMD wins is they have to tie one of Intel's arms behind It's back. Gimp the chip

How will it not reach 3.6? from 2.8 with 3.2 turbo Engineering sample?

[dizmo]

6 minutes ago, FPS-Russia said:

How will it not reach 3.6? from 2.8 with 3.2 turbo Engineering sample?

Ask the "amazing overclocking!" Fury line. Maybe they'll tell you.

[FPS-Russia]

Now a GPU is a CPU too, getting better memes every day.

[dizmo]

Just now, FPS-Russia said:

Read title.

Where did i say it is faster in everything?! Bias and immature i think so!

I didn't quote the title though, now did I? No. I quoted what you said to another member.

You made it sound like it'll be faster than Broadwell-E at everything.

[Darel321]

ehh.. when intel hype the shit out of their chips for like 5% improvement.. its ok.. when amd do it..... its lies etc...  -.- whatever people...

[Aaron1001]

IMO, this is very very simple, and both sides are overreacting. YES, clock for clock, the AMD chip, at least in some scenario's, is faster then Intel. I don't think anyone can deny that if we take the tests at face value (though because they are run by AMD themselves, I would take it with a grain of salt. same would be said if it was Intel).

37 minutes ago, FPS-Russia said:

Clock for clock faster than Broadwell-E and beating it at same clock peed, that is over hyping?

yes. yes it is. It is important to note that the Intel chip is not running at stock frequency, and if it was running at stock, it would handily beat the AMD chip.

36 minutes ago, FPS-Russia said:

How will it not reach 3.6? from 2.8 with 3.2 turbo Engineering sample?

now you are simply guessing the overclocking capabilities. Sure. there is a chance that it can hit 3.6, but there is also a chance that it wont. But now you are comparing a overclocked chip to a non overclocked chip. Overclock the intel chip, and you have a different story.

 

In the end, we dont know how fast the AMD chip will be. Now, call me a Intel fan boy, but it seems to me, that because they are showing tests where the 6900k is underclocked, a scenario that heavily favors AMD, that their chip cant beat intel in a fair fight. But does that mean I think AMD has a bad product? NO! the 6900k retails for over $1000. That is a absurdly high price. If AMD can sell this chip at a "low" price point, say $600, they can still win the performance per dollar battle, which I think is much more important then just straight up performance.

 

honestly, I am not very interested in the new 8 core zen CPU and the 6900k. What I am really excited for are AMD's lower end Zen offerings. As it stands, there isnt a good CPU at the $100-$150 range. A fx-6350 has too many cores, and too little performance per core. Intel's Pentium and i3 has good performance per core, but two cores/two cores four threads is simply not enough now. So if AMD can come out with a CPU in the $100-$150 range with 4 cores and good gaming performance, something that doesn't really exist unless you buy older hardware like the 2500k or 3570k, that would be absolutely amazing. 

 

 

 

 

[FPS-Russia]

1 minute ago, Aaron1001 said:

IMO, this is very very simple, and both sides are overreacting. YES, clock for clock, the AMD chip, at least in some scenario's, is faster then Intel. I don't think anyone can deny that if we take the tests at face value (though because they are run by AMD themselves, I would take it with a grain of salt. same would be said if it was Intel).

yes. yes it is. It is important to note that the Intel chip is not running at stock frequency, and if it was running at stock, it would handily beat the AMD chip.

now you are simply guessing the overclocking capabilities. Sure. there is a chance that it can hit 3.6, but there is also a chance that it wont. But now you are comparing a overclocked chip to a non overclocked chip. Overclock the intel chip, and you have a different story.

 

In the end, we dont know how fast the AMD chip will be. Now, call me a Intel fan boy, but it seems to me, that because they are showing tests where the 6900k is underclocked, a scenario that heavily favors AMD, that their chip cant beat intel in a fair fight. But does that mean I think AMD has a bad product? NO! the 6900k retails for over $1000. That is a absurdly high price. If AMD can sell this chip at a "low" price point, say $600, they can still win the performance per dollar battle, which I think is much more important then just straight up performance.

 

honestly, I am not very interested in the new 8 core zen CPU and the 6900k. What I am really excited for are AMD's lower end Zen offerings. As it stands, there isnt a good CPU at the $100 range. A fx-6350 has too many cores, and too little performance per core. Intel's Pentium and i3 had good performance per core, two cores/two cores four threads is simply not enough now. So if AMD can come out with a CPU in the $100-$150 range with 4 cores and good gaming performance, something that doesn't really exist unless you buy older hardware like the 3570k, that would be absolutely amazing. 

 

 

 

 

There is not a single CPU for over 12 years that can never go above 500mhz minimum on the desktop.

[Aaron1001]

Just now, FPS-Russia said:

There is not a single CPU for over 12 years that can never go above 500mhz minimum on the desktop.

well, Intels non k cpu's cant go anything above specified... (yes I understand you can mess with the BLCK frequency)

 

but, you are cherry picking my points. I never denied that it cant. just said that it might be able to, might not. i don't think anyone can fault me on that point. 

 

if you overclock the AMD chip, you HAVE to overclock the intel chip. and when you do that, i am pretty confident intel will still win out. 

 

And before you wrangle my neck, I am not hating on AMD. I will quote a part of my own post that pretty much sums up what I think about this new CPU.

16 minutes ago, Aaron1001 said:

In the end, we dont know how fast the AMD chip will be. Now, call me a Intel fan boy, but it seems to me, that because they are showing tests where the 6900k is underclocked, a scenario that heavily favors AMD, that their chip cant beat intel in a fair fight. But does that mean I think AMD has a bad product? NO! the 6900k retails for over $1000. That is a absurdly high price. If AMD can sell this chip at a "low" price point, say $600, they can still win the performance per dollar battle, which I think is much more important then just straight up performance.

 

[Aaron1001]

1 hour ago, FPS-Russia said:

-snip-

I honestly cant tell if you are trolling or if you are serious. But, if you really are serious, I propose a question. Why would they underclock the intel chip and not overclock theirs? If everyone saw a 3.6ghz amd zen beating out a 3.6ghz 6900k, EVERYONE would be losing their shit at how amazing this new chip is. but they didnt. why not?

[FPS-Russia]

1 minute ago, Aaron1001 said:

I honestly cant tell if you are trolling or if you are serious. But, if you really are serious, I propose a question. Why would they underclock the intel chip and not overclock theirs? If everyone saw a 3.6ghz amd zen beating out a 3.6ghz 6900k, EVERYONE would be losing their shit at how amazing this new chip is. but they didnt. why not?

So why is the opposite so much worse? oh right they downclocked intel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BIASED FUCKERS.

[Aaron1001]

Just now, FPS-Russia said:

So why is the opposite so much worse? oh right they downclocked intel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BIASED FUCKERS.

because if they overclock their chip. It shows that not only is AMD faster clock for clock, they can also achieve similar clock rates. 

[totjup5]

29 minutes ago, Aaron1001 said:

I honestly cant tell if you are trolling or if you are serious. But, if you really are serious, I propose a question. Why would they underclock the intel chip and not overclock theirs? If everyone saw a 3.6ghz amd zen beating out a 3.6ghz 6900k, EVERYONE would be losing their shit at how amazing this new chip is. but they didnt. why not?

Because one is a released product and one is an early engineering sample. The chip isn't finalized yet and they probably haven't hit final clock speeds. They did it to provide a 1:1 comparison and demonstrate the IPC of the zen chip vs the Intel chip. There's no use arguing over it when we don't know what the release version of zen will be capable of. The point is, clock for clock, according to AMD, zen is ahead of broadwell e. Unless you are a horrible fanboy that should excite you. We won't know whether the clock speeds will be able to match Intel's offerings until launch but based on my past experience over clocking AMD CPUs I'm hopeful they will. However, even if the clock speeds aren't up with intel it could still provide some much needed competition in the CPU marketplace if they price it right, and force Intel to respond in a more meaningful way than sitting on their asses like they have basically since sandy bridge. No matter how you look at it, even if this chip can't go much higher than 3.2, this is a good step for AMD and a good sign for tech enthusiasts.

 

[Aaron1001]

1 minute ago, totjup5 said:

Because one is a released product and one is an early engineering sample. The chip isn't finalized yet and they probably haven't hit final clock speeds. They did it to provide a 1:1 comparison and demonstrate the IPC of the zen chip vs the Intel chip. There's no use arguing over it when we don't know what the release version of zen will be capable of. The point is, clock for clock, according to AMD, zen is ahead of broadwell e. Unless you are a horrible fanboy that should excite you. We won't know whether the clock speeds will be able to match Intel's offerings until launch but based on my past experience over clocking and CPUs I'm hopeful they will. However, even if the clock speeds aren't up with intel it could still provide some much needed competition in the CPU marketplace if they price it right, and force Intel to respond in a more meaningful way than sitting on their asses like they have basically since sandy bridge. No matter how you look at it, even if this chip can't go much higher than 3.2, this is a good step for AMD and a good sign for tech enthusiasts.

 

I never thought of that, but that does make quite a bit of sense. Never said i wasnt excited about amd being faster clock for clock, just that i wasnt excited by their, intel and AMDs, higher end offerings. I want to see AMD competitive in the mid $100 range as i see that being the best case scenario for everyone.