AMD Financial Analyst Day (Official Zen & GCN News)

[Opcode]

Nvidia did it going from the 9000 series to the gtx 200s. AMD also did it going from HD 7000 to R9 200. Just use a new prefix or suffix. Quite frankly, I have no idea why they still insist on calling them FX CPUs. They need to do as much as possible to show customers that they're turning a new leaf with their new architecture.

Redemption

[Eroda]

for me the FX name seems linked with weak processors its why i would like to see it dropped at least for a couple of years maybe Phenom is dead but similar to APU's A series they could do a Z series for Zen CPU's  is what im thinking..  i mean for instance 8 core Zen CPU with 3.5ghz clock could be Z8 135 (Zen 8 core generation 1 3.5ghz) or Add back 4th digit Z8 1350

[TorqueS]

Something like FX-Zxxx would be a nice name and it would give a hint about the new core...but let's not get hyped about names.

We want performance!!!

 

The presentation seemed pretty convincing that AMD is coming back.

[Opcode]

Something like FX-Zxxx would be a nice nam and it would give a hint about the new core...but let's not get hyped about names.

We want performance!!!

 

The presentation seemed pretty convincing that AMD is coming back.

New captain driving the ship makes a big difference, Lisa Su is our Jack Sparrow. 

 

[Hieb]

Extremely happy to have some solid news!

 

AM4 socket, 40% IPC improvement, and 14nm... if this pans out and the performance backs up the numbers they're tossing out now, I think I may be upgrading to an AMD system next year. =)

 

Of course this will depend on the clock speeds possible on the architecture, but a 40% IPC gain over Excavator (which is 10-20% better than Piledriver, totalling maybe ~55% over current FX lineup) would put them around Ivy Bridge level of performance, by my estimates.

 

So based on the quad-core modules, I would assume that they will be releasing in 4, 8, 12 and 16-core variants. I'm not sure how they plan to have all this on the same platform since 12-16 core models would likely require an extremely beefy motherboard... I'm also curious how they plan to compete in the low-end segment, since presumably with quad-core modules they can't have a dual-core CPU without an entirely different manufacturing process for it.

 

Either the cost of manufacturing these chips is much, much lower than the cost of producing the current ones, or they're going to be taking razor thin margins (not a good thing for AMD right now), or they're dropping the low-end market... I'm really interested to see if AMD focuses almost entirely on mainstream and performance rather than budget segments. Leave Intel as the Pentium maker while they're crushing them with sixteen core desktop parts... o__0 that would be such a change of pace, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

 

But if they could release the following, they'd have a real winning lineup.

FX Quad-Core (4C4T) ~ $100

FX Quad-Core (4C8T) ~ $175

FX Eight-Core (8C8T) ~ $300

FX Eight-Core (8C16T) ~ $400

FX Twelve-Core (12C24T) ~ $550

FX Sixteen-Core (16C32T) ~$750

 

This might be unrealistic... but that would be awesome. If something like the above panned out, you'd basically be getting an i5-3570K at $100, an i7-3770K at $175, a nerfed 5960X w/o hyperthreading at $300, a nerfed 5960X for $400, and basically the server grade 12-16 core Xeons for just over $0.5K.

 

I'd also jump on the hyper-threaded eight-core at that price... might even jump at the twelve core although I suspect it would struggle to reach high clocks.

 

I'm really jumping the gun and getting my hopes up... I expect if AMD has truely competitive offerings they're going to be priced a lot higher. My predictions are primarily based off the fact that I can't imagine AMD having NOTHING to offer in the <$100 range, especially considering APUs are likely to be targeted at the <$200 segment, so they must have a quad-core without the graphics for <$100.

[Tim Drake]

Apparently a 40% increase in IPC! They have a chance again!

[Hieb]

New captain driving the ship makes a big difference, Lisa Su is our Jack Sparrow. 

 

 

That might just be the sexiest thing I've ever seen.

[Glenwing]

for me the FX name seems linked with weak processors its why i would like to see it dropped at least for a couple of years maybe Phenom is dead but similar to APU's A series they could do a Z series for Zen CPU's  is what im thinking..  i mean for instance 8 core Zen CPU with 3.5ghz clock could be Z8 135 (Zen 8 core generation 1 3.5ghz) or Add back 4th digit Z8 1350

Yeah, IMO they really should drop the FX name, it has too much bad history at this point. Unfortunately I get the feeling AMD would rather stand and fight and try to turn the entire bad reputation of FX around by releasing some good FX processors, you know, company pride and all that, rather than abandon the name. Sadly AMD's bad decisions in marketing has always hurt them and I think this will be no exception.

Personally I think they should go back to the old Phenom name, since they had a decent reputation and it marks the shift away from CMT (bulldozer) back to non-module design like the old Phenoms were, so it fits nicely in that respect. Something like the Phenom III X6-3900K might not be bad... It's a bit long maybe, but it's only the last four-digit bit that really counts. Much like we can drop the "Core i7" from Intel chips when we talk about them even though it's technically part of the name.

It's similar in form to the older Phenoms (i.e. Phenom II X4 965) but represents an evolution above them with the four digits. The last Phenoms (Thubans) only just broke 1000 in the model numbers, so this would pick back up nicely where they left off. It's also similar to the current APUs (i.e. A10-6800K), and it's similar to the FX naming as well (X6-3### is like FX-63## with the first number representing core count, second number representing generation, third number for tier) so it's unlikely to be confusing, and ties all their past naming schemes together pretty well. And it would also bring it in line with their graphics cards (i.e. R9 390X and X6 3900K) but with four digits (extra zero) so that the identifying numbers aren't exactly the same.

[Opcode]

Yeah, IMO they really should drop the FX name, it has too much bad history at this point. Unfortunately I get the feeling AMD would rather stand and fight and try to turn the entire bad reputation of FX around by releasing some good FX processors, you know, company pride and all that, rather than abandon the name. Sadly AMD's bad decisions in marketing has always hurt them and I think this will be no exception.

Personally I think they should go back to the old Phenom name, since they had a decent reputation and it marks the shift away from CMT (bulldozer) back to non-module design like the old Phenoms were, so it fits nicely in that respect. Something like the Phenom III X6-3900K might not be bad... It's a bit long maybe, but it's only the last four-digit bit that really counts. Much like we can drop the "Core i7" from Intel chips when we talk about them even though it's technically part of the name.

It's similar in form to the older Phenoms (i.e. Phenom II X4 965) but represents an evolution above them with the four digits. The last Phenoms (Thubans) only just broke 1000 in the model numbers, so this would pick back up nicely where they left off. It's also similar to the current APUs (i.e. A10-6800K), and it's similar to the FX naming as well (X6-3### is like FX-63## with the first number representing core count, second number representing generation, third number for tier) so it's unlikely to be confusing, and ties all their past naming schemes together pretty well. And it would also bring it in line with their graphics cards (i.e. R9 390X and X6 3900K) but with four digits (extra zero) so that the identifying numbers aren't exactly the same.

As someone who remembers the first days of FX and all of it's glory when AMD was really giving it to Intel. I would rather see AMD clean up the Bulldozer mess and wash away the tarnish on the FX branding. I doubt it will have any impact on sales as people who don't know what's in a machine before buying it won't care and those who do know should know enough to know the difference between Piledriver and Zen. An easy way for AMD to make this transition is to just simply cut sales of Vishera products shortly before Zen hits store shelves. Whatever leftover inventory can be sold on eBay and sites alike to people who know what they're buying meanwhile the retail market can be saturated with Zen effectively wiping the slate clean.

 

I think AMD should add a alphabetical character in place of the first digit in the second string. For instance FX-Z145 for the quad core Zen based FX (FX-Z165, FX-Z185, etc). FX-[Zen][Generation][Cores][Model Tier] or something along them lines would seem sufficient for a new naming scheme. I don't think we'll see anything between 6000 and 9000 as them have already been hit and would really screw up sales of Zen due to naming scheme similarity. Plus as stated they have to consider future generations of Zen based CPU's that will fit in the new naming scheme (FX-Z245, FX-Z345, FX-Z445).

[Eroda]

snip

 

snip

 

 

snip

 

 

Hieb they could possibly have dual core versions if they are totally modular they can take the quad cores with problems and laser cut them down? although im not sure if this works but im sure its been done before

 

Glenwing that is what i was getting at with the Z8 you cant use X because of "zen" Z makes more sense to AMD Phenom Z8 185 or ( Z8 1350)(  Z=Zen 8 = Cores 1= Gen = last 2 digits base clock 35 = 3.5ghz ) dropping FX completly for me would be a clean slate in the minds of the consumer which is what they are going for with zen clean slate unified AM4 Platform.

 

OPcode i remember the original FX stuff but its been tarnished for me almost beyond repair if they drop FX and use Phenom or Z series on its own similar to A series it will give consumers something fresh. not saying they couldnt bring back the FX during the second generation or 3rd generation but make it like the 2011 socket for intel  something expensive and outlandish like a 12c 24t  or 16c/32t CPU truly something ballsy worthy of the FX branding

[Hieb]

Phenom Z 400 - 4C4T

Phenom Z 450 - 4C8T

Phenom Z 800 - 8C8T

Phenom Z 850 - 8C16T

Phenom Z 1250 - 12C24T

Phenom Z 1650 - 16C32T

 

They can make the Phenom scheme work without a stupid long name

 

I really hope AMD doesn't launch too many SKUs... like we don't need five eight-core models at different clock speeds. I think it's to AMD's benefit that they release with fewer SKUs. Higher potentials for the silicon lottery is gonna sound better to most people rather than like we have now... for example instead of having FX-8320, 8350, 8370, 9370, 9590 they could just go for something like just the 8320 while some will reach 5GHz and others won't. I think it'd look better than having a load of different SKUs of the same chip with very minor voltage differences.

 

Furthermore, with further SKUs that would mean each individual product turns up more search results, more reviews, etc. It would probably look better to see one eight-core CPU with a hundred reviews than a single SKU having 20 reviews, while Intel's flagship has hundreds (since they've only got the 1 unlocked SKU from each lineup).

[Eroda]

Phenom Z 400 - 4C4T

Phenom Z 450 - 4C8T

Phenom Z 800 - 8C8T

Phenom Z 850 - 8C16T

Phenom Z 1250 - 12C24T

Phenom Z 1650 - 16C32T

 

They can make the Phenom scheme work without a stupid long name

 

I really hope AMD doesn't launch too many SKUs... like we don't need five eight-core models at different clock speeds. I think it's to AMD's benefit that they release with fewer SKUs. Higher potentials for the silicon lottery is gonna sound better to most people rather than like we have now... for example instead of having FX-8320, 8350, 8370, 9370, 9590 they could just go for something like just the 8320 while some will reach 5GHz and others won't. I think it'd look better than having a load of different SKUs of the same chip with very minor voltage differences.

 

Furthermore, with further SKUs that would mean each individual product turns up more search results, more reviews, etc. It would probably look better to see one eight-core CPU with a hundred reviews than a single SKU having 20 reviews, while Intel's flagship has hundreds (since they've only got the 1 unlocked SKU from each lineup).

 

 

that kinda works but doesnt because there doesnt seem to be an easy way to differentiate generations i mean we had Phenom X6 1100T before why cant we have Phenom Z8 135 or Z8 1350 because when the second generation comes out it can be Phenom Z8 235 for instance 

[Hieb]

that kinda works but doesnt because there doesnt seem to be an easy way to differentiate generations i mean we had Phenom X6 1100T before why cant we have Phenom Z8 135 or Z8 1350 because when the second generation comes out it can be Phenom Z8 235 for instance 

 

Well what I was thinking was for Phenom Z 800, the Z is the generation ("Zen"). Next generation could be Z+ since the following architecture at this time is codenamed Zen Plus. The 800 is the number of cores (8) with the 850 being for 8 cores with hyper-threading. I think it could work =P

 

IMO generation confusion isn't really an issue since Phenom IIs aren't sold retail anymore, and there aren't any eight, twelve or sixteen core Phenoms.

 

Something like Phenom Z8 100 (150 variant for hyper-threading) might work, and then following generation could be Phenom Z8 200.

[Ketcchup]

New captain driving the ship makes a big difference, Lisa Su is our Jack Sparrow. 

 

my god hahahahahaha

 

 

EDIT: same opinion as @Eroda, but calling it Athlon remembering good old days vs P4

[zappian]

Apparently a 40% increase in IPC! They have a chance again!

 

40% IPC over bulldozer is like sandy bridge IPC.

Pair that with 8 REAL cores and you have a decent little chip.

[Opcode]

Its not magical when Excavator sucked balls, Keller isn't some messiah. 

Excavator doesn't "suck balls" as you don't even have any valid numbers to base such a statement on.

[Ketcchup]

40% IPC over bulldozer is like sandy bridge IPC.

Pair that with 8 REAL cores and you have a decent little chip.

 

But it's 40% IPC over Excavator. Steamroller already has a 5-10% IPC increase over piledriver, which makes a 4.4GHz 860K perform like a 4.8GHz/5GHz FX4300

[zappian]

Excavator doesn't "suck balls" as you don't even have any valid numbers to base such a statement on.

 

Bias and personal option > Facts.

Didn't you know?

/s

[zappian]

But it's 40% IPC over Excavator. Steamroller already has a 5-10% IPC increase over piledriver, which makes a 4.4GHz 860K perform like a 4.8GHz/5GHz FX4300

 

Thats even better .

[TorqueS]

40% IPC over bulldozer is like sandy bridge IPC.

Pair that with 8 REAL cores and you have a decent little chip.

Actually they say 40% better IPC than Excavator.

Now, Excavator isn't particularily WOW, but IPC is around 10-15% better than bulldozer.

So, add 40% to that and you're around 50% better IPC than current FXs, which if it's true, then oh boy, they hit the jackpot.

Current FXs are behind Intel's offerings, but Intel's chips aren't like twice more powerful.(we're talking consumer i5s/i7s 4xxxx). 

 

We might see Ivy Bridge core performance on Zen, which, as you said, paired with 8 real cores might be a more than decent chip.

Then again, all standard disclaimers apply, this is just speculation, not actual facts...so AMD, "Get the powa back!".

[Ketcchup]

Actually they say 40% better IPC than Excavator.

Now, Excavator isn't particularily WOW, but IPC is around 10-15% better than bulldozer.

So, add 40% to that and you're around 50% better IPC than current FXs, which if it's true, then oh boy, they hit the jackpot.

Current FXs are behind Intel's offerings, but Intel's chips aren't like twice more powerful.(we're talking consumer i5s/i7s 4xxxx). 

 

We might see Ivy Bridge core performance on Zen, which, as you said, paired with 8 real cores might be a more than decent chip.

Then again, all disclaimers apply, this is just speculation, not actual facts...so AMD, "Get the powa back!".

 

You can't do 10% plus 40%.

 

1.1 * 1.4 = 1.54, so it's a 54% estimated over piledriver (which is even better hehe)

[Eroda]

Well what I was thinking was for Phenom Z 800, the Z is the generation ("Zen"). Next generation could be Z+ since the following architecture at this time is codenamed Zen Plus. The 800 is the number of cores (8) with the 850 being for 8 cores with hyper-threading. I think it could work =P

 

IMO generation confusion isn't really an issue since Phenom IIs aren't sold retail anymore, and there aren't any eight, twelve or sixteen core Phenoms.

 

Something like Phenom Z8 100 (150 variant for hyper-threading) might work, and then following generation could be Phenom Z8 200.

 

 

well ive locked it down now if they drop the FX name they can easilly pick up Phenom or just call it the Z series

 

Imagine

Z(base)  8(cores)  1(Generation) 35(baseclock) E(features)

 

now im not sure if they will be having Hyperthreaded and Non Hyperthreaded versions but thats neither here nor there imagine

 

Nothing = Nothing

T = Hyperthreaded

K= Unlocked

E= Low power

 

so

 

Phenom Z4 120E

Phenom Z4 125T

Phenom Z4 130K (K series has HT Also)

 

 

Phenom Z8 130

Phenom Z8 130T

Phenom Z8 135K

 

2nd Gen

Phenom Z8 235K

 

ties into similar Radeon naming but has the nostalgia from the old Phenom X6.. this works best for me

 

and for those saying excavator shit 40% over ex @ 3.5 clock with HT and 8 true physical cores if that thing is price around the $500 mark ill be ALL FUKN over it

[TorqueS]

You can't do 10% plus 40%.

 

1.1 * 1.4 = 1.54, so it's a 54% estimated over piledriver (which is even better hehe)

I'm totally aware of that fact mate.

I said 50% as a rough idea of what we should expect.(not actually adding the two % values duh....i'm about to graduate high-school, i'd call myself dumb as f*** if I did that)

[Opcode]

You can't do 10% plus 40%.

 

1.1 * 1.4 = 1.54, so it's a 54% estimated over piledriver (which is even better hehe)

You can't forget about Excavator IPC gains.

Piledriver:  100Steamroller: 100   * 1.1  = 110Excavator:   110   * 1.05 = 115.5Zen:         115.5 * 1.4  = 161.7

That puts Zen at 61% higher IPC than Piledriver.

[Ketcchup]

You can't forget about Excavator IPC gains.

Piledriver:  100Steamroller: 100   * 1.1  = 110Excavator:   110   * 1.05 = 115.5Zen:         115.5 * 1.4  = 161.7

That puts Zen at 61% higher IPC than Piledriver.

If it's real we can put Zen at the same level as Haswell, considering GeekBench results are linear and fiable, but im sure i'm wrong and there are much better benchmarks(860K core at 4.4 = ~2500 points, G3258 core at 4.4 = ~4000 points)