AMD Releases More Details on Zen's Architecture

[DocSwag]

Hmm... I'm assuming then that these are the slides AMD will be showing off on Tuesday at HotChips. Kul.

 

I understood about 20% of everything lol so hopefully some more news sites can break it down more .

[Bananasplit_00]

im going to flip my shit if AMD screws up pricing and puts the 4c/8t processor at the same as a I7 6700 or something. i dont think that would be good for anyone but intel. AMD DONT FUCK UP THE PRICE I WANT A NEW CPU YOU SHITS lol

 

*edit*

also this was a really great post, thanks OP

[Trixanity]

27 minutes ago, Thony said:

Im sure u mean 4/8. 

And 4/8 is basically FX8120 which did cost around $200 at launch so im hoping Zen doesnt go much over that.

 

24 minutes ago, Thony said:

AMD and "high end" dont go together

I doubt Zen will be revolutionary amd bring AMD to high end market. $500 is more than i7-6700k. AMD cant compete with that with tgat price tag.

 

This is an entirely different beast. The FX processors were priced based on performance. It could not compete so the price was severely reduced.

You won't get an 8C/16T for $200 unless it launches with extremely disappointing performance. It's not really competing with 6700K either. Vastly different products and not even $500 would get you 8 cores from Intel (it just barely gets you a crippled 6 core actually), so where else would you get those 8 cores that you need? AMD won't really be undercutting Intel in any major way. They need the money and it's a dangerous precedent to set and it's dangerous considering the deep pockets of Intel.

 

So it's a ridiculous assumption to make that AMD would be handing out 6900K equivalent (best case scenario) processors for 1/5 of the price. 

[Doobeedoo]

Those are quite of details. Wish to see more real world benchmarks now, even though it's ES still. 

[GlassBomb]

I'll be waiting until Zen is available for your average consumer to join the hype train.

 

All early benchmarks (against competitors) will tell me is the intended market that they are aiming to reach. And a minor suggestion of the price bracket.

 

Here's a hint, if they compare themselves to something priced at $200. Then it it very likely that they will price it as such.

[Coaxialgamer]

I mean every time AMD went the traditional route and didn't attempt to make a complex and unorthodox core ( like bulldozer ) , they always came out at least decent...

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

I mean every time AMD went the traditional route and didn't attempt to make a complex and unorthodox core ( like bulldozer ) , they always came out at least decent...

All we can hope for is the Zen launch to not be another one of their stunts where whey show a shitload of data and graphs that prove to be very incorrect.

[GlassBomb]

After digging around some. Equivalent Intel Xeon that you can get that has 8 cores (16 threads) that boosts up to 3GHz (2.1 stock) comes in at a price of $400, which would be the E5-2620v4.

 

Which can probably give you a minor suggestion of where AMD might want to price their product at. Since we have no indication of any sort of overclockability, or anything. We have no idea if this chip come at 3GHz out of the box, or if that is a boost clock.

 

So I felt that putting the Xeon mentioned to the Zen would be comparable.

[maazster]

4W TDP? Looks like a good competitor to Intel's core M lineup.

[Thony]

2 hours ago, Citadelen said:

I don't really want to spend ages explaining what the original factors that held the design team for Bulldozer were but I guess I'll have to. First of all, CEOs like Hector and Dirk cut R&D spending massively and made very shitty decisions. 

I forgot about that. But even then its been so long i dont believe in AMD's comeback especially after latest rumour on how that one zed sku performs close to some i5. Topic is burried somwhere, but im sure u know what i mean.

 

Eitherway we find out soon enough. And if comeback of their best ever engineer doesnt help then nothing will i guess.

[Coaxialgamer]

2 hours ago, GlassBomb said:

After digging around some. Equivalent Intel Xeon that you can get that has 8 cores (16 threads) that boosts up to 3GHz (2.1 stock) comes in at a price of $400, which would be the E5-2620v4.

 

Which can probably give you a minor suggestion of where AMD might want to price their product at. Since we have no indication of any sort of overclockability, or anything. We have no idea if this chip come at 3GHz out of the box, or if that is a boost clock.

 

So I felt that putting the Xeon mentioned to the Zen would be comparable.

The chip ES chip was 2.8 ghz base, 3.2 ghz boost.  Amd have alway allowed at least some overclocking on their products 

 

Aso,  the chip they showed off was 3ghz base,  as a boost clock only works on one thread

[GlassBomb]

13 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The chip ES chip was 2.8 ghz base, 3.2 ghz boost.  Amd have alway allowed at least some overclocking on their products 

 

Aso,  the chip they showed off was 3ghz base,  as a boost clock only works on one thread

The Xeon chip I mentioned is 2.1 base, 3.0 with boost. http://ark.intel.com/products/92986/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2620-v4-20M-Cache-2_10-GHz

 

But regardless, my point still stand that we still do not know a lot when it comes to Zen. I would love it if they priced their CPU's really competitively.

[Jon Jon]

7 hours ago, Trixanity said:

 

 

This is an entirely different beast. The FX processors were priced based on performance. It could not compete so the price was severely reduced.

You won't get an 8C/16T for $200 unless it launches with extremely disappointing performance. It's not really competing with 6700K either. Vastly different products and not even $500 would get you 8 cores from Intel (it just barely gets you a crippled 6 core actually), so where else would you get those 8 cores that you need? AMD won't really be undercutting Intel in any major way. They need the money and it's a dangerous precedent to set and it's dangerous considering the deep pockets of Intel.

 

So it's a ridiculous assumption to make that AMD would be handing out 6900K equivalent (best case scenario) processors for 1/5 of the price. 

I fully agree.

 

We won't see the 8 core Zen chip for prices we've seen from AMD in recent years, but I do expect them to be lower.

 

I am thinking Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 pricing.

[Demonking]

People expecting a 200 USD 8 core cpu from AMD that can compete with broadwell are living in la la land. AMD needs to be profitable. 

[Trixanity]

13 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

I fully agree.

 

We won't see the 8 core Zen chip for prices we've seen from AMD in recent years, but I do expect them to be lower.

 

I am thinking Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 pricing.

I don't recall the prices on those, but probably.

 

If they price the processors too low, they might end up setting a precedent. So if they price them low on the first generation of Zen to gain market share but raise prices considerably on Zen+, they'll end up with a lot of backlash if they would try to pull that. Also, it would be foolish trying to start a price war with Intel. Intel can go lower than AMD can if they want to. Intel can subsidize or give other incentives so it would be a futile effort to try to do that. Finally, there's their massive debt and there's a need to be profitable. Billions spent on R&D need to be recuperated. That's where selling expensive chips come in. It's all supply and demand. There is room for some big 8C/16T CPU(s) and at the right price, it'll win AMD a lot of customers. They'll most likely be lower in price but not "50% off" lower.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The chip ES chip was 2.8 ghz base, 3.2 ghz boost.  Amd have alway allowed at least some overclocking on their products 

 

Aso,  the chip they showed off was 3ghz base,  as a boost clock only works on one thread

depends. Locked AMD chips are truly locked, and simply wont enjoy BCLCK OC.

[Jon Jon]

12 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I don't recall the prices on those, but probably.

 

If they price the processors too low, they might end up setting a precedent. So if they price them low on the first generation of Zen to gain market share but raise prices considerably on Zen+, they'll end up with a lot of backlash if they would try to pull that. Also, it would be foolish trying to start a price war with Intel. Intel can go lower than AMD can if they want to. Intel can subsidize or give other incentives so it would be a futile effort to try to do that. Finally, there's their massive debt and there's a need to be profitable. Billions spent on R&D need to be recuperated. That's where selling expensive chips come in. It's all supply and demand. There is room for some big 8C/16T CPU(s) and at the right price, it'll win AMD a lot of customers. They'll most likely be lower in price but not "50% off" lower.

They were cheaper and so was the overall platform, but not crazy cheap like some people here are expecting.

 

I 100% agree with you on the R&D comment, because they do need to recuperate that back.

 

I expect the AMD ZEN CPUs to be around $100~ cheaper than the comparable Intel equivalent.

 

You pair that with the typical lower cost of AMD motherboards, and you are saving an overall $200~ for the platform, which is pretty huge.

 

I think people are just spoiled that AMD has been in this budget segment for over half of a decade. AMD had to price their current generation and previous CPUs at budget prices simply to compete. IMO, they have not had a truly competitive architecture since K8 (Athlon64) and once the Core 2 architecture hit from Intel, they started to slip. The first generation Core architecture and then eventually Sandy Bridge, AMD has been a distant second ever since.

 

They can't price and won't price Zen like that this time around, as it should be comparable.

 

 

 

[Citadelen]

5 hours ago, Thony said:

-snip-

Again it's been so long because CPU architectures take ages to make. Zen was started in 2012, and won't see consumer light until 2017. AMD has made do with Bulldozer as best they can, especially with it's power efficiency.

I suggest you watch the videos AdoredTV makes on Zen they're very comprehensive, and provide a realistic and comprehensive view of Zen. Oh and that leak is probably not real.

[patrickjp93]

8 hours ago, Thony said:

Expect to have $200-300. Cant see AMD aiming any higher.

Historically, when AMD is competitive on performance, they match Intel's prices.

 

Athlon Extreme, Phenom X6, and FX 9590. Each launched at $1000. Seriously, expecting 5960X performance for less than $700 is ludicrous. It's not going to happen.

[GlassBomb]

10 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Historically, when AMD is competitive on performance, they match Intel's prices.

 

Athlon Extreme, Phenom X6, and FX 9590. Each launched at $1000. Seriously, expecting 5960X performance for less than $700 is ludicrous. It's not going to happen.

Depending on how the Zen that was shown off is spec'ed in terms of base/boost clocks (not to mention if it's unlocked or not), then it goes up against anywhere from $400 Xeons up to $1,000 6900k i7's (Though, we don't know what generation of Intel CPU's they used).

 

But even then, a 6700k would probably be better overall in terms of performance for your average Joe.

 

Going by my own gut-feeling, then I'm just going to assume that they are going to price it around $350~400. At least when it comes to that particular chip that was shown off. At least if they want to price it super competitively. Else they can probably price it at $500.

 

All of this is pure speculations from my part though. So they can price it however they wish. I'm just looking forward to more alternatives.

[That Norwegian Guy]

6-core for $300 or bust

[rcarlos243]

By the time Zen is available Kabe Lake will already be released increasing the IPC gap to Zen by 10~15% if the rumors are true it Zen is as fast as Broadwell.

[Thony]

47 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Historically, when AMD is competitive on performance, they match Intel's prices.

 

Athlon Extreme, Phenom X6, and FX 9590. Each launched at $1000. Seriously, expecting 5960X performance for less than $700 is ludicrous. It's not going to happen.

It would be really nice if ZEN could compete with X99. Intel would finally start working hard instead of sailing with no wind for many years. I do not believe it will and I stand by my opinion until release date.

[Coaxialgamer]

True , but those were opterons. The rest at least had base clock overclocking available

[PocketNerd]

That first graph had me very confused at first, they have "Performance" on the Y-axis and then on the right-end on the X-axis they have "More Performance" where it should be "More Power."

Almost had me thinking that Zen was somehow weaker than Excavator.