(Rumour) AMD Zen CPUs to Release in Q4 2016 – APUs In 2017 - GPU performance around the PS4 And XBOX ONE level

[Sauron]

Um yeah....APU performance on the level of the consoles is actually out now (but in short supply) in the form of the Iris pro 6200....a year and a half before this....

 

On 250$+ cpus. APUs have always been on the lower end of the price spectrum, and frankly there's no point in an ultra high performance apu - might as well get a good dedicated gpu so you can upgrade regularly.

[Misanthrope]

APUs are the future. Not just AMD, but Oracle, IBM, ARM, and Intel are in agreement about this too. AMD is not wrong to have that focus, though you could argue they're a half decade too early with the concept.

 

I'll reply to clarify: they are the future for certain applications and places, sure. They are most certainly not the future of a failing, virtually bankrupt company that's struggling to break into a market with tech so outdated that's literally 1.5x years behind intel.

 

My problem is that the usual ways that AMD has to stay competitive in the GPU arena just do not apply for tech that's based about how efficient you can be. I.E. let's say I say there's big money on sprinting competitions. Does that means than the equivalent of a small time professional athlete that has a decent yet middling performance should take on Usain Bolt? Of course not you'll lose to him every time and if you invest all your money on that proposition you'd simply go out of business.

 

AMD will be back to the same place: pricing their mediocre APUs so aggressively that they'll not be able to sustain it. It pains me to see this because I do see a lot of potential in their GPU products but at this point all I see from Zen is another boat anchor threatening to sink the company that does make some products I like.

[marldorthegreat]

 

 

 

Its just a rumour but at least something. If zen apus are on the xbone a ps4 level than this means that the apu concept is pretty much dead. Sorry amd. RIP.

Source: http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-launch-q4-2016/

Gpu performance is at same level, cpu will be much better. 

[Misanthrope]

On 250$+ cpus. APUs have always been on the lower end of the price spectrum, and frankly there's no point in an ultra high performance apu - might as well get a good dedicated gpu so you can upgrade regularly.

 

That's just intel being intel: they're holding on to Iris pro 6200 and just put it on a virtually launched product like Broadwell that they actually didn't expect to sell at all. Intel is 100% capable of releasing a Skylake based i3 chip with the iris pro 6200 that's only 20 or 30 more expensive than a normal i3, certainly not 250 but closer to 150.

 

They just choose not to for reasons unbeknownst to me (Since I fucking want a chip like that, and I think enough people do want that too)

[Sauron]

That's just intel being intel: they're holding on to Iris pro 6200 and just put it on a virtually launched product like Broadwell that they actually didn't expect to sell at all. Intel is 100% capable of releasing a Skylake based i3 chip with the iris pro 6200 that's only 20 or 30 more expensive than a normal i3, certainly not 250 but closer to 150.

 

They just choose not to for reasons unbeknownst to me (Since I fucking want a chip like that, and I think enough people do want that too)

 

But an iris pro i3 would probably cost more than i3s do now. At the end of the day the price would probably be close to that of a matching apu, and unless they allow overclocking on i3s they wouldn't be that competitive.

[Kamina]

I have a feeling that I'll end up disappointed.

[Misanthrope]

But an iris pro i3 would probably cost more than i3s do now. At the end of the day the price would probably be close to that of a matching apu, and unless they allow overclocking on i3s they wouldn't be that competitive.

 

Yes more, but not that much more. In fact you could just clock em a bit lower and for what they're intended to do they'd do just fine. Even a dual core without hyperthreading but with iris pro 6200 would work fine for a decent HTPC processor that can do all of your entertainment including some light gaming naively.

[patrickjp93]

APUs are the cheapest and most efficient way of having strong single core and exceptional parrallellism in one package... there is no getting around that fact

Actually that honor would belong to a CPU with a vector ASIC or FPGA accelerator programmed as such.

[Prysin]

Actually that honor would belong to a CPU with a vector ASIC or FPGA accelerator programmed as such.

it is more complicated to make a efficient, low TDP (atleast under 150w) CPU with ENOUGH cores, that are both big enough and strong enough to match a GPU in parrallellized tasks and a modern desktop CPU in single core tasks...

 

it can be done, but you end up with a XEON that costs a 1500-4000 USD...

 

It is no joke, that even a modestly clocked Tonga iGPU would give a XEON a run for its money in terms of acceleration. And while the XEON would win, the question becomes "by how much, and at what cost?"

 

if a iGPU gets within a margin of 20% of a XEON while costing 15 times less. Then the answer to "which is better" is quite obvious.

[MageTank]

Broadwell i7 5775c

 

yes, it is close... VERY close.... with an aggressive overclock it will maybe reach 750Ti levels. still not quite there. But still

Umm, no. The 5775C is still roughly 20% behind a GTX 750, which is already 20-30% behind a GTX 750 Ti. Even if you overclock the iGPU on those CPU's, you can still just OC the Maxwell GPU's higher too, and the lead will always be apparent. The Iris Pro 6200 is NOT meant to be compared to  (or replace) gaming desktop GPU's. 

 

Intel knows what they are doing. They are by no means dumb when it comes to market segmentation, and where their products stand. There is a reason Broadwell SKU's were limited as far as the desktop market came. However, we are seeing a ton of mobile broadwell products, and now even Xeons with Iris Pro graphics. Imagine these low powered SKU's still having graphics comparable to entry level gaming cards, and not requiring larger, more aggressive cooling solutions? NUC size boxes capable of giving 720p console quality (or better, in most cases) performance, at an equal or lower price, and a much greater form factor? Intel knows where these iGPU's belong, and we already see them fitting that role.

 

They are not going to try to go head to head against the current gaming GPU markets. They would simply not succeed. By the time we see GT4e, we will see improved, cheaper entry level gaming cards from both AMD and Nvidia too. Instead, Intel will work their way into the mobile/server GPU market, and win on both fronts when it comes to not only price:performance, but also performance:liter. Thinner, more efficient laptops that don't require large bricks, because a 65w total solution can perform just as good as an i3 + GT 940m? Yeah, that's a win in my book.

[Prysin]

Umm, no. The 5775C is still roughly 20% behind a GTX 750, which is already 20-30% behind a GTX 750 Ti. Even if you overclock the iGPU on those CPU's, you can still just OC the Maxwell GPU's higher too, and the lead will always be apparent. The Iris Pro 6200 is NOT meant to be compared to  (or replace) gaming desktop GPU's. 

 

Intel knows what they are doing. They are by no means dumb when it comes to market segmentation, and where their products stand. There is a reason Broadwell SKU's were limited as far as the desktop market came. However, we are seeing a ton of mobile broadwell products, and now even Xeons with Iris Pro graphics. Imagine these low powered SKU's still having graphics comparable to entry level gaming cards, and not requiring larger, more aggressive cooling solutions? NUC size boxes capable of giving 720p console quality (or better, in most cases) performance, at an equal or lower price, and a much greater form factor? Intel knows where these iGPU's belong, and we already see them fitting that role.

 

They are not going to try to go head to head against the current gaming GPU markets. They would simply not succeed. By the time we see GT4e, we will see improved, cheaper entry level gaming cards from both AMD and Nvidia too. Instead, Intel will work their way into the mobile/server GPU market, and win on both fronts when it comes to not only price:performance, but also performance:liter. Thinner, more efficient laptops that don't require large bricks, because a 65w total solution can perform just as good as an i3 + GT 940m? Yeah, that's a win in my book.

i never mentioned they will get to "next gen 750Ti" levels did i?

 

we have already discussed this and yes, you can OC maxwell (in which case you would get to 270X stock levels), and yes you can OC pitcairn (in which case your 270X will smoke a stock 950). However at the end of the day, they are CLOSE.

 

being CLOSE when you apply an aggressive OC is still a fair argument. DO THEY BEAT THE CURRENT ENTRY LEVEL GPUS? NO

 

also, hi, you're late to the party it seems

[MageTank]

i never mentioned they will get to "next gen 750Ti" levels did i?

 

we have already discussed this and yes, you can OC maxwell (in which case you would get to 270X stock levels), and yes you can OC pitcairn (in which case your 270X will smoke a stock 950). However at the end of the day, they are CLOSE.

 

being CLOSE when you apply an aggressive OC is still a fair argument. DO THEY BEAT THE CURRENT ENTRY LEVEL GPUS? NO

 

also, hi, you're late to the party it seems

But its not "Close".  Not by a long shot. It is 20% behind a stock GTX 750. How is that close? Especially given the price premium of current broadwell desktop SKU's. Much better alternatives exist. It is still 40-50% behind a GTX 750 Ti (Both stock). Can you show me any overclocked iris pro 6200 benchmarks? Any of them that can even get within spitting distance of a stock Maxwell 750/Ti, let alone an overclocked version? 

 

The results posted earlier from Toms Hardware were skewed. They showed an Athlon 860k + GTX 750 vs a core i7 5775C with Iris Pro 6200, at 720p resolution. That low of a resolution, the CPU will be doing all of the heavy lifting. It was basically the i7 vs the 860k at that point, which explains the vast difference in minimum FPS (The more important number in gaming). Put an Iris 6200 against a GTX 750 Ti, both running the same CPU, and OC them to the best of your abilities. I promise you, it will not be a fair fight for the Iris Pro 6200. 

[Prysin]

But its not "Close".  Not by a long shot. It is 20% behind a stock GTX 750. How is that close? Especially given the price premium of current broadwell desktop SKU's. Much better alternatives exist. It is still 40-50% behind a GTX 750 Ti (Both stock). Can you show me any overclocked iris pro 6200 benchmarks? Any of them that can even get within spitting distance of a stock Maxwell 750/Ti, let alone an overclocked version? 

 

The results posted earlier from Toms Hardware were skewed. They showed an Athlon 860k + GTX 750 vs a core i7 5775C with Iris Pro 6200, at 720p resolution. That low of a resolution, the CPU will be doing all of the heavy lifting. It was basically the i7 vs the 860k at that point, which explains the vast difference in minimum FPS (The more important number in gaming). Put an Iris 6200 against a GTX 750 Ti, both running the same CPU, and OC them to the best of your abilities. I promise you, it will not be a fair fight for the Iris Pro 6200. 

actually, the test is done because ALL APUs are unable to reach stable 60FPS at 1080p. It doesnt matter AT ALL. the iGPUs of intel or AMD is incapable of hitting those frames no matter what at 1080p

[MageTank]

actually, the test is done because ALL APUs are unable to reach stable 60FPS at 1080p. It doesnt matter AT ALL. the iGPUs of intel or AMD is incapable of hitting those frames no matter what at 1080p

But the 750 can hit 60fps at 1080p. Lowering the resolution only made it easier for the CPU's to do the heavy lifting. The 5775C crushed the 860k tremendously in terms of minimum FPS, making the GTX 750 look worse than what it actually was. If they wanted a fair, accurate comparison, they should have ran the GTX 750 on the 5775C and show what happens to the FPS when you use one over the other. That would have removed all doubt, and gave us all solid information.

 

Instead, they used the 860k, which is just another variable. I know what you will say though. Why buy a $400 CPU just to use an $80 GPU with it? Well, when one makes the claim that something is faster than something else, we want to be 100% certain of that fact. The only way to do that, is to remove all variables and give a direct head to head comparison. 

 

My point still stands though. Until someone can give me solid proof of an Iris Pro 6200 performing faster than a GTX 750, or GTX 750 Ti, i must continue to stick with the current evidence i have seen. Which is, at full stock clocks, the Iris Pro performing 20% less than a GTX 750, and the GTX 750 performing 20-30% less than the GTX 750 Ti. 

[Swndlr]

I've never used an AMD APU, but from what I've heard they can already knock the snot out of a console....

Yeh theyre really not that bad for 1080p gaming with low to medium settings, just make sure youve got some fast ram (like 2400MHz fast). And even if you have to set it down to 1600X900 in certain games to get more frames, its not that bad at all.

[Prysin]

But the 750 can hit 60fps at 1080p. Lowering the resolution only made it easier for the CPU's to do the heavy lifting. The 5775C crushed the 860k tremendously in terms of minimum FPS, making the GTX 750 look worse than what it actually was. If they wanted a fair, accurate comparison, they should have ran the GTX 750 on the 5775C and show what happens to the FPS when you use one over the other. That would have removed all doubt, and gave us all solid information.

 

Instead, they used the 860k, which is just another variable. I know what you will say though. Why buy a $400 CPU just to use an $80 GPU with it? Well, when one makes the claim that something is faster than something else, we want to be 100% certain of that fact. The only way to do that, is to remove all variables and give a direct head to head comparison. 

 

My point still stands though. Until someone can give me solid proof of an Iris Pro 6200 performing faster than a GTX 750, or GTX 750 Ti, i must continue to stick with the current evidence i have seen. Which is, at full stock clocks, the Iris Pro performing 20% less than a GTX 750, and the GTX 750 performing 20-30% less than the GTX 750 Ti. 

well, an APU is a CPU + GPU combo.. we all know that at SOME point a massively stronger CPU will overtake a weaker CPU even if the weaker CPU has a vastly superior GPU.

 

Yeh theyre really not that bad for 1080p gaming with low to medium settings, just make sure youve got some fast ram (like 2400MHz fast). And even if you have to set it down to 1600X900 in certain games to get more frames, its not that bad at all.

they are barely equal to a PS3/fagbox360... ive built several AMD APU systems, i own one myself... they are NOT that fast...

they are fast enough for you to get by, but they arent badass enough to even make your pants wet...

[Swndlr]

well, an APU is a CPU + GPU combo.. we all know that at SOME point a massively stronger CPU will overtake a weaker CPU even if the weaker CPU has a vastly superior GPU.

 

they are barely equal to a PS3/fagbox360... ive built several AMD APU systems, i own one myself... they are NOT that fast...

they are fast enough for you to get by, but they arent badass enough to even make your pants wet...

Thats perfectly fine, its what youre paying for. I agree they arent exactly logical because of what else youre able to build for the same price or not much more, but the APU itself isnt too bad.

[Prysin]

Thats perfectly fine, its what youre paying for. I agree they arent exactly logical because of what else youre able to build for the same price or not much more, but the APU itself isnt too bad.

true, for the price it is not.. however it has some flaws

 

unless you manually OC, it will throttle the CPU from 3.7GHz to 3GHz when the iGPU is under heavy load. This is to preserve the TDP.

the iGPU itself is WAAAAY too underclocked

 

if they had bothered to work on the Kaveri chips a bit more, i bet they could have squeezed out enough performance to get it to iris PRO levels...

[MageTank]

well, an APU is a CPU + GPU combo.. we all know that at SOME point a massively stronger CPU will overtake a weaker CPU even if the weaker CPU has a vastly superior GPU.

 

they are barely equal to a PS3/fagbox360... ive built several AMD APU systems, i own one myself... they are NOT that fast...

they are fast enough for you to get by, but they arent badass enough to even make your pants wet...

Apparently not everyone knows that fact, because i keep seeing that Toms Hardware bench pop up when people talk about the Iris Pro 6200 beating a GTX 750, or being "very close". 20% is close, i will contest that. The difference between the GTX 970 and GTX 980 is only 20% on average. However, the GTX 980 costs 56% more money, for 20% more performance. The core i7 5775C costs $390 ($388 as of right now on Pcpartpicker). The 4790k  is currently $250 at Microcenter, but lets use its $300 price (Listed right now on Newegg and Superbiiz). GTX 750 Ti is currently $93. $300 + $93 = $393. I can pay 1% more money, for 40-50% more GPU performance. The Price:Performance of the 5775C just does not add up. It's too niche, which is why its supply is very limited.

 

That 20% lower difference in iGPU performance over a GTX 750, does not justify the CPU's 30% higher price over a 4790k. I would rather get an unlocked i5 4690k($200) and a GTX 960 or R9 380($180) for that price. 

 

The simple point i am making is: The Iris Pro 6200 is not as fast as a GTX 750. Even overclocked, you can still overclock the lower Maxwell cards in return, and always be ahead. The price premium is also not worth it. I doubt this will change any time soon, but i could be wrong. Until those iGPU's make it into the lower end i3s, we won't see the Iris Pro SKU's hurting APU's any time soon.

[Sauron]

Yes more, but not that much more. In fact you could just clock em a bit lower and for what they're intended to do they'd do just fine. Even a dual core without hyperthreading but with iris pro 6200 would work fine for a decent HTPC processor that can do all of your entertainment including some light gaming naively.

 

It would work, but why buy that over an apu? Assuming the prices are similar and the apu gets some extra performance from higher stock clocks and overclocking capabilities.

[Misanthrope]

Apparently not everyone knows that fact, because i keep seeing that Toms Hardware bench pop up when people talk about the Iris Pro 6200 beating a GTX 750, or being "very close". 20% is close, i will contest that. The difference between the GTX 970 and GTX 980 is only 20% on average. However, the GTX 980 costs 56% more money, for 20% more performance. The core i7 5775C costs $390 ($388 as of right now on Pcpartpicker). The 4790k  is currently $250 at Microcenter, but lets use its $300 price (Listed right now on Newegg and Superbiiz). GTX 750 Ti is currently $93. $300 + $93 = $393. I can pay 1% more money, for 40-50% more GPU performance. The Price:Performance of the 5775C just does not add up. It's too niche, which is why its supply is very limited.

 

That 20% lower difference in iGPU performance over a GTX 750, does not justify the CPU's 30% higher price over a 4790k. I would rather get an unlocked i5 4690k($200) and a GTX 960 or R9 380($180) for that price. 

 

The simple point i am making is: The Iris Pro 6200 is not as fast as a GTX 750. Even overclocked, you can still overclock the lower Maxwell cards in return, and always be ahead. The price premium is also not worth it. I doubt this will change any time soon, but i could be wrong. Until those iGPU's make it into the lower end i3s, we won't see the Iris Pro SKU's hurting APU's any time soon.

 

Except that's not a real price premium: That's why I said Broadwell was just virtually launched, so little units that there's basically no MSRP to speak of whatsoever, otherwise the chips would be cheaper than Skylake since it is a generation behind.

 

More over, intel only released the highest end versions of the chips as I said if they decided to release the iris pro 6200 on say, a Skylake i3 chip the price would be basically 100 to 150 for both a capable CPU and a GPU not far behind the 750. A fairly good value proposition, just not one that's available to the public because again, intel said "fuck the Iris" and decided to just sit on it and not produce it at all.

[Sharkyx1]

i dunno, if AMD could offer 950 level performance on board i think that would be a pretty big deal in PC space, R7 370 (1024 core 1000mhz) delivers 20-30 fps in most of the demanding games at 1080 maxed out, so turn a couple things down and you have an iGPU that can play crysis 3 at high 1080p 30+

[MageTank]

Except that's not a real price premium: That's why I said Broadwell was just virtually launched, so little units that there's basically no MSRP to speak of whatsoever, otherwise the chips would be cheaper than Skylake since it is a generation behind.

 

More over, intel only released the highest end versions of the chips as I said if they decided to release the iris pro 6200 on say, a Skylake i3 chip the price would be basically 100 to 150 for both a capable CPU and a GPU not far behind the 750. A fairly good value proposition, just not one that's available to the public because again, intel said "fuck the Iris" and decided to just sit on it and not produce it at all.

I guess i should concede to that point. I mostly associated the premium to the iGPU, as nothing else Broadwell does over Haswell is impressive, so the vast difference in price would be for that iGPU (from a consumer standpoint). However, the reason that price difference is so vast, is because of the limited availability. Intel's listed MSRP value on ARK suggests the 5775c should have been way cheaper than what it debuted at. The lack of stock clearly drove that price up, so yeah, you are right.

 

That being said, i think Intel came to the same conclusion that i have been speaking of. People will not be buying an unlocked i5 or i7, and using an iGPU. That is why they decided not to go all out in selling them. However, you are right in saying that the Iris Pro iGPU's would do much better on i3's, locked i5's, and maybe all of the T or S variant CPU's. We already see 65w broadwell SKU's with Iris Pro, 65w is perfectly acceptable for HTPC use. I can't see them using them on Pentiums or Celerons, as it would probably cost them more money than what people would be willing to pay for them. That, and Dual Cores need to be phased out eventually.

 

The most confusing aspect is, why we see all of these Broadwell laptops, but none of them have Iris Pro 6200? One would think that would be the most ideal solution for low powered mobile GPU's. 

[Dabombinable]

I guess i should concede to that point. I mostly associated the premium to the iGPU, as nothing else Broadwell does over Haswell is impressive, so the vast difference in price would be for that iGPU (from a consumer standpoint). However, the reason that price difference is so vast, is because of the limited availability. Intel's listed MSRP value on ARK suggests the 5775c should have been way cheaper than what it debuted at. The lack of stock clearly drove that price up, so yeah, you are right.

 

That being said, i think Intel came to the same conclusion that i have been speaking of. People will not be buying an unlocked i5 or i7, and using an iGPU. That is why they decided not to go all out in selling them. However, you are right in saying that the Iris Pro iGPU's would do much better on i3's, locked i5's, and maybe all of the T or S variant CPU's. We already see 65w broadwell SKU's with Iris Pro, 65w is perfectly acceptable for HTPC use. I can't see them using them on Pentiums or Celerons, as it would probably cost them more money than what people would be willing to pay for them. That, and Dual Cores need to be phased out eventually.

 

The most confusing aspect is, why we see all of these Broadwell laptops, but none of them have Iris Pro 6200? One would think that would be the most ideal solution for low powered mobile GPU's. 

TBH, straight dual cores should have died out with Sandybridge (not that Sandybridge is dead-just that there shouldn't have been straight dual cores based on Sandybridge and subsequent architecture).

[patrickjp93]

TBH, straight dual cores should have died out with Sandybridge (not that Sandybridge is dead-just that there shouldn't have been straight dual cores based on Sandybridge and subsequent architecture).

They'll die when the vast majority of software necessitates quad-core machines. And honestly if Intel moves to 4-way SMT as on KNL, then performance scaling on dual-core chips may increase to the point it remains more than acceptable.