null

[incarnate]

10 minutes ago, cptavim said:

Well you could technically say that for everything that hasn't been released yet and say that we won't ever know how it's really like until it gets released

How can you know what the final product will be like before it gets released? You are right, you can and should say that about every unreleased product. I fail to see how that is a defense. And look at AMD's track record. Seriously. Their gpus and cpus both get over hyped pre-release.

 

Seriously apply a little common sense, you think amd is really capable of making up for years of falling behind in one generation? Come on now. AMD has been losing money for the last what 5 years straight? Maybe more?

[Nena Trinity]

Zen can be anything from 40% to a 100% better IPC over Carrizo but who knows at this point we can only guess! My guess since AMD claimed 40% to 100% my guess is probably 20% to 50% max...

[Guest]

null

[Guest]

null

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, cptavim said:

Wow i didn't mean for everybody do get so mad lol sorry. 

I guess I pissed off some intel fanboys. /s (pls dont kill me it's only joke)

 

I just hope that intel gets some competition soon because some people don't realize that we NEED zen to be good. Competition is good for companies because it gives them a reason to innovate. Intel hasn't had a reason to innovate since 2011 and that's why we are getting processors with minor performance improvements (although intel has done a good job reducing power consumption)

It has nothing to do with angering "Intel Fanboys". It has everything to do with you spreading misinformation about monopolies and then pretending you did it on purpose, when everyone knows you were ignorant on the definition of what a monopoly was. 

 

Nobody here wants to see Zen fail. We all already know that a strong AMD CPU means potentially cheaper Intel CPU's, and vice versa. That concept is not foreign to people. The problem is when people start to use rumors in place of facts, and mix those new "facts" with nonsense. That is where problems arise. 

 

Hopefully you understand that now.

[Guest]

null

[MageTank]

Just now, cptavim said:

Did you not see where I put the sarcasm symbol and i said that It was a joke.

Did you not see the part where everything after my first sentence applied directly to the context of your paragraph?

[Guest]

null

[Nena Trinity]

7 minutes ago, cptavim said:

Do you mean excavator?

Carrizo = Excavator yes

[Guest]

null

[PlayStation 2]

Why would their future not be Zen.

[MageTank]

Just now, cptavim said:

Yes I did, and I'm sorry that I said incorrect things, it was a mistake (WOAH A HUMAN MADE A MISTAKE). Now please stop continuing this argument.

The argument would have ended had you just acknowledged the mistake in the first place. You were the one that repeatedly tried to defend an incorrect statement, and even tried to twist it as if you did it intentionally to get a rise out of people. 

 

Besides, It's already over. You've been sufficiently proven wrong by everyone in this thread on the subject, and I am against beating dead horses. 

[Guest]

null

[incarnate]

16 minutes ago, cptavim said:

Wow i didn't mean for everybody do get so mad lol sorry. 

I guess I pissed off some intel fanboys. /s (pls dont kill me it's only joke)

 

I just hope that intel gets some competition soon because some people don't realize that we NEED zen to be good. Competition is good for companies because it gives them a reason to innovate. Intel hasn't had a reason to innovate since 2011 and that's why we are getting processors with minor performance improvements (although intel has done a good job reducing power consumption)

Yes we need Zen to be good. You were out right spreading hype though. What we don't need is unrealistic expectations going around because once AMD fails to meet those lofty expectations then amd will appear far worse than if those expectations were never set.

 

Hyping up Zen won't make it good, it will just let people down. I agree intel needs competition, but this isn't going to help anything.

[Guest]

null

[incarnate]

Just now, cptavim said:

Sorry for spreading hype, I didn't know it wasn't allowed in these forums. I didn't know that hype is frowned upon.

With each snarky post you just show how ignorant you really are. Did you really think that a community of enthusiasts would totally be ok with rumors being presented as fact? Are you really going to make that statement?

[MageTank]

7 minutes ago, cptavim said:

I was proven wrong about monopolies. What else what was i proven wrong on?

That 40% number, which was a rumor. Not exactly "wrong" per say, but definitely not a fact that you can provide evidence to. Only the words of AMD themselves, which is a conflict of interest. Also, I did not need to mention anything else. I specifically said "You were sufficiently proven wrong by everyone in this thread on the subject". The subject in this context, was monopolies. You know, the thing you kept complaining about when i brought them up? Yeah, that.

 

Any who, pretty sure we are done here, right? Let's go over the checklist:

 

Intel having faster hardware at the moment is not a monopoly: Check.

Zen being good is good for everyone: Check.

What we know of Zen so far is mostly rumors: Check.

 

Yup, that pretty much does it for me. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MageTank said:

That 40% number, which was a rumor. Not exactly "wrong" per say, but definitely not a fact that you can provide evidence to. Only the words of AMD themselves, which is a conflict of interest. Also, I did not need to mention anything else. I specifically said "You were sufficiently proven wrong by everyone in this thread on the subject". The subject in this context, was monopolies. You know, the thing you kept complaining about when i brought them up? Yeah, that.

 

Any who, pretty sure we are done here, right? Let's go over the checklist:

 

Intel having faster hardware at the moment is not a monopoly: Check.

Zen being good is good for everyone: Check.

What we know of Zen so far is mostly rumors: Check.

 

Yup, that pretty much does it for me. 

 

Quote

Mark Papermaster, AMD’s Chief Technology Officer. Revealed that Zen will have a huge improvement in IPC, Instructions Per Clock, vs Excavator. AMD’s latest and last, yet unreleased, Bulldozer family CPU core.  A 40% increase in IPC would represent the largest jump in IPC ever for the company. We’re not particularly surprised but still very excited about this huge improvement.

Quote

Mark Papermaster also made it a point to highlight that this 40% performance improvement figure is independent of the manufacturing process. So it’s a permanent architectural performance improvement that will always be present regardless of the process node flavor chosen to make a Zen based product.

 

[Guest]

null

[MageTank]

Just now, cptavim said:

 

 

 

Okay, you posted more information about AMD's product, coming out of AMD's mouth again. Did you ignore my whole "conflict of interest" part of my post? AMD saying something about their own product's speed is not definitive proof. I personally believe they can get 40% IPC, but I will not go around telling others about it as if it is fact. Too many other factors we do not know. We know its reported TDP, and we hear core configurations, and SMT, etc, but the physics does not add up. 40% IPC on top of 8 cores AND 2 way SMT adding even more heat, to a 95w package? Yeah... clock rates will have to be low for the physics to work.

 

However, that is my opinion still, and not a fact. Just like AMD making these charts. I made a chart once too.

 

 

 

As others have stated. Until we see proof of those words from AMD, then that is all they will be. Words, from AMD.

[Guest]

null

[MageTank]

Just now, cptavim said:

Lol nice chart and good point. But couldn't that logic that we really don't know that something isn't proof until the product comes out. Intel says that they will have 10nm chips in 2017, but do we really know that? We don't until the product comes out.

That is beside the point. Nobody here is saying Intel will have 10nm by 2017 in this thread. Sure, there are news posts, but we have also said the same thing there. "They said this before and delayed, I won't believe it until i see it". That's the general belief regarding Intel and their release schedules, unless you are a man named Patrick, cough. 

 

Intel has been late on several releases. Broadwell was delayed for a very long time. Skylake launched with low yields (which is why prices were so high, not just because of demand) and Kaby is filling in because of the recent delays. I won't be surprised if Icelake (or whatever its called) is delayed as well. The point is, do not take a companies word for something. It's a huge conflict of interest. No company is going to tell people that their product is slower than something. They would rather bend the words. Notice AMD is only advertising IPC, and not providing information about clock speeds? That is because they can still technically match Haswells IPC, but still be a slower CPU due to slower clock speeds. They say "Haswell" but are not specific in which SKU. Vague advertisement = vague faith. 

[Guest]

null

[looncraz]

8 hours ago, cptavim said:

Btw, I'm not the one who said that the 40% would be equal to haswell. I just saw it from another website and said it here. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/46l4vp/amd_the_future_is_zen/d062w00

91 upvoted it so...

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/46l4vp/amd_the_future_is_zen/d0636s1

 

Also, sorry for the snarky comments, didn't realize this community was  so uptight.

 

His numbers are nearly exactly mine (which makes sense given how simple the math and how many resources are available).

 

In theory, Zen should almost exactly match Haswell... if, AND ONLY IF, that 40% IPC improvement claim relates to a 40% average performance increase per clock.

 

Sounds like I might be confusing things, but there's a very distinct difference.  IPC is NOT performance per cycle - it is INSTRUCTIONS per cycle.

 

You can have a 40% increase in IPC and a 5% increase in performance/cycle if that 40% increase is poorly targeted.  Likewise, you can have a 40% increase in IPC and see 100% increase in performance/cycle if the improvement is superbly targeted.

 

However, we know a great deal about Zen's basic design.

 

It is 4 or 8-issue, depending on issue rate.

It has 10-pipelines, and likely three schedulers behind a reorder buffer (ALU, AGU, FPU).

It has a 256-bit FPU which uses multiple pipelines at the same time to execute AVX, potentially being an issue for AVX performance if not done exactly right.  However, it should be exceptional for "legacy" floating point, given how floating point code is usually excellent for parallelization.

Certain SMT scenarios could see 50% or more scaling when Intel will see 0% scaling due to pipeline conflicts.

...

The list goes on and on.

 

But none of that matters if it is only a 3GHz CPU, though it's suppose to be "closer to 4GHz."

[Sat1600]

11 hours ago, MageTank said:

Once again, you do not know how monopolies work. Monopolies can be legal of they are gained through legal means. If a company fairly beats another competitive company without using underhanded tactics, and the other shuts down, that is not illegal. 

 

Intel does not have a monopoly in the slightest, not by any definition of the word. AMD has competing products in every market. Server, consumer, and even mobile. You can argue that their products might not be on par with Intel's at the moment, but having a weaker product does not make the stronger product an obvious decision, let alone a monopoly. Other factors determine consumer buying trends. People still buy AMD CPU's, as evidenced by the recent new 990FX boards. 

Simple. Look at Duke Nukem. Game was decades in the making, and overhyped. Once initial release came, and everyone got the finished product, they were extremely disappointed. When something is hyped too much, people expect too much. Failure to meet expectations is bad.

There is a legal term for monopoly amd then there is a figure of speech.

 

The only reason intel is not a real monopoly is because of repeated lawsuits by amd and the ftc stopping in from becoming one. The have had to pay damages because of unfair practices.

 

Even if they were always fair and just better they would still be a monopoly if they controlled the industry. You can't say they are nowhere near a monopoly if AMD is the only thing that stops them from being so.

 

The term monopoly can also be used as a figure of speech. Saying that intel has a monopoly on the high end enthusiasts grade CPU's is a perfectly fair statement. It's like saying that until Barak Obama "white men had a monopoly of the presidency".

 

I think the point that op was making was that we all benefit if Zen can compete with intel's high end chip.

 

I don't think they would have pulled that crap with blocking overclock on skylake chips if amd had a stronger presence in the market.