AMD planning high-end CPU with all the bells and whistles

[PillowSmoke]

[patrickjp93]

I'm not saying they're useless for everyone, I'm saying to me it's a complete waste of silicon. If they offered a 4690k without an iGPU at all for a discount, I'd get that. As it is I just got a bunch of extra cores instead, and very much not a discount.

If you think Intel would give you the four pure cores at a discount you're crazy. People already proved they'd happily pay the market price for the chip with the iGPU. The prices would be the same.

[Ostwind]

it can alarm you when someone is cumming to your room

I live on a rocky dirt road, I can hear cars before they can see my house

[Albatross]

Hopefully they can pull this off. 

Would be great for the industry.

Intel might not get to sit on their asses all day anymore.

 

>implying it's going to be good 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

It would be good if Intel had some worthy competition.

[GoldSrc]

Clearly you didn't see how the 128MB of eDRAM affected the 5775C performance. In a number of tests it shows despite the clock difference, it can keep up with a 4790K. I don't think anyone's yet shown overclocked tests either. Integration is the future simply because it will improve performance. The closer you can bring more RAM to the CPU, the less time it takes to access memory and the more bandwidth you can achieve.

eDRAM shouldn't be compared with normal RAM, hell, they may as well add more cache.

10-20GB/s of your average RAM is still pretty fast for a CPU, sure eDRAM and cache are way faster but for your average PC, it wouldn't matter.

 

Bringing RAM closer to the die sure saves more time, but that's what cache and eDRAM are for.

I don't see RAM outside the CPU going away any time soon.

[patrickjp93]

eDRAM shouldn't be compared with normal RAM, hell, they may as well add more cache.

10-20GB/s of your average RAM is still pretty fast for a CPU, sure eDRAM and cache are way faster but for your average PC, it wouldn't matter.

Bringing RAM closer to the die sure saves more time, but that's what cache and eDRAM are for.

I don't see RAM outside the CPU going away any time soon.

No, eDRAM and DDR4 aren't dissimilar. The difference is the stuff under the lid of your CPU is clocked higher and run in quad or octal channel to have both the benefits of low latency and high bandwidth without having to revise the memory controller of the CPU itself. And each level of cache serves a very specific purpose in the software pipeline. Throwing more cache at the problem solved nothing on its own and can make things worse. The larger the cache, the higher the latency to access it due to the internal search algorithms. For a CPU that's a precarious balance to maintain between bandwidth and latency. That's why the Crystalwell L4 cache only catches what falls out of L3 and does nothing else. For a graphics or compute workload with a larger data set than consumer CPU workloads and more memory reuse, you get the maximal benefit.

Would it kill you to not run your mouth at people actually pursuing this field for a career? You're asking to get your butt handed to you.

[Demonking]

If you think Intel would give you the four pure cores at a discount you're crazy. People already proved they'd happily pay the market price for the chip with the iGPU. The prices would be the same.

" the four pure cores" I like what you did there yet people still say they're actually real cores 

[2FA]

They said at least a 40% improviment in ipc. That will bring ipc inline with at least the first generation i5/i7.

 

Actually it would be on par, in actuality a few thousand IPC ahead, with Haswell. I got bored and did the math one time.

[tsk]

I hope for the sake of AMD and x86 that they deliver. But I will certainly not take Roy Taylors word for it...

[That Norwegian Guy]

I just hope they work out a good chipset this time. Because of DX12 I don't necessarily want the BEST CPU available anymore, but I do need the chipset to be solid. If AMD can challenge Intel's greedily lacking PCIe lane dogma, then that will be the #1 factor for me. Give me 32 lanes (24 for GPUs, the rest for M.2) and I'll happily give AMD all of my shekels.

[harrynowl]

" the four pure cores" I like what you did there yet people still say they're actually real cores 

He's on about a silicone die that only contains 4 CPU cores and no integrated graphics units, as it'd save money on production costs and Intel could sell them at a discount.

 

Except they wont because they don't need to.

[Opcode]

eDRAM shouldn't be compared with normal RAM, hell, they may as well add more cache.

10-20GB/s of your average RAM is still pretty fast for a CPU, sure eDRAM and cache are way faster but for your average PC, it wouldn't matter.

 

Bringing RAM closer to the die sure saves more time, but that's what cache and eDRAM are for.

I don't see RAM outside the CPU going away any time soon.

I foresee AMD using HBM to make a true SoC for embedded designs. One place I foresee it happening is in the next generation of consoles. Although I agree that for desktop PC's I doubt we will see the phasing out of DIMM slots. It would be nice to see AMD do away with laptop memory as well and just put everything on the same package.

[othertomperson]

If you think Intel would give you the four pure cores at a discount you're crazy. People already proved they'd happily pay the market price for the chip with the iGPU. The prices would be the same.

 

I'm sorry, I missed the part of my post where I said that I expected this to happen. I thought we were just talking about whether or not we particularly cared about iGPUs. I must remember that you're going to take every comment as a forecast.

[patrickjp93]

I'm sorry, I missed the part of my post where I said that I expected this to happen. I thought we were just talking about whether or not we particularly cared about iGPUs. I must remember that you're going to take every comment as a forecast.

 If they offered a 4690k without an iGPU at all for a discount, I'd get that.

 

But that's just it, they wouldn't and won't because they see no value in doing so, and neither does anyone else in the industry. The Athlons are still as expensive as their APU counterparts most of the time.

[martinrox1568]

They said at least a 40% improviment in ipc. That will bring ipc inline with at least the first generation i5/i7.

I hope you're joking and that you dont actually believe that 

[Notree]

I hope you're joking and that you dont actually believe that 

No I'm not joking. That's exactly  what they said. Whats not to believe? http://wccftech.com/amd-officially-reveals-2016-cpu-roadmap-zen-k12/ 

[jos]

No I'm not joking. That's exactly  what they said. Whats not to believe? http://wccftech.com/amd-officially-reveals-2016-cpu-roadmap-zen-k12/

The article says for Zen

To put this massive leap in performance into perspective a 40% IPC improvement would put Zen on par with Haswell according to the aggregate single threaded PassMark database.

First gen i7 is Bloomfield not Haswell and for i5 it is Lynnfield

[Comrade_Dave]

They need to make their high end CPU use the same socket as their servers. Like how you can use Xeon CPUs on an x99 motherboard.

[martinrox1568]

No I'm not joking. That's exactly  what they said. Whats not to believe? http://wccftech.com/amd-officially-reveals-2016-cpu-roadmap-zen-k12/

The 4670k is 20% faster than the 9590 from AMD in single threaded workloads. 40% increase in IPC would make it far better than what Intel is currently offering

[martinrox1568]

They need to make their high end CPU use the same socket as their servers. Like how you can use Xeon CPUs on an x99 motherboard.

Why? A xeon would be slower than any x99 cpu in gaming, and that's really all we care about

[jos]

The 4670k is 20% faster than the 9590 from AMD in single threaded workloads. 40% increase in IPC would make it far better than what Intel is currently offering

Are you saying the processor is 20% faster or IPC is 20%.. i have not done any comparison myself.. if processor it cannot be equated to ipc

[martinrox1568]

Are you saying the processor is 20% faster or IPC is 20%.. i have not done any comparison myself.. if processor it cannot be equated to ipc

Sorry, I completely forgot that the 9590 came overclocked to 4.7ghz. In Cinebench and passmark it was around 20% slower than a 4670k. Then I'm guessing the 8350 would be around 20% slower than that, making the 40% IPC zen would offer on par with haswell in IPC

[Comrade_Dave]

Why? A xeon would be slower than any x99 cpu in gaming, and that's really all we care about

I would like to see more competition in workstation setups. Probably not possible because of budget. I just want more choices.

[sof006]

AMD you said this before and nothing came of it... Please actually give Intel some competition. Otherwise I shall remain a Intel consumer.

[martinrox1568]

I would like to see more competition in workstation setups. Probably not possible because of budget. I just want more choices. 

I just feel that AMD is no where near the stability or the features Intel can provide, which are really needed in the workstation market. But considering most peoples workstations are just a 5820k with an x99 motherboard, and a 5820k is just a 4670k with 2 extra cores and some cache, and that the new zen cpu's should offer similar IPC to haswell but with 16 cores, zen might actually be an excellent alternative