AMD ZEN Hyperthreading?

[Ronald Browen]

I try my best. Anyone else have anything else to say on this topic? Or is it all stated here? Anyone? Ideas?

[Ronald Browen]

More info=More knowledge I love any and all things I can learn here. let us further this subject. There is still, hope fully, more thing to discuss. (just thought about Dracula Untold "there is still more to fear" line)

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, Ronald Browen said:

So basically Zen won't be much better?

Zen will be better, AMD already showcased a 8 core/16 thread Zen chip against a 6850K and they were evenly matched when set at the same speed.

 

Zen is a huge IPC improvement over Carrizo (AMD FX is Excavator, an older Bulldozer subarchitecture), roughly 40% increases.

CMT splits the resources amongst 2 full fledged cores and hurts single core performance greatly in certain workloads (gaming), SMT has additional resources that can be used for 2 threads with a smaller performance hit to thread performance. Zen runs SMT, and AMD's implementation might be closer to IBM's, which would have less of a performance hit than HTT.

 

Another tidbit of info, Intel didn't actually create Hyperthreading, IBM did, and the true name is SMT. Intel's implementation was the first successful implementation to the x86 architecture.

[LeStringMan]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Zen will be better, AMD already showcased a 8 core/16 thread Zen chip against a 6850K and they were evenly matched when set at the same speed.

 

Zen is a huge IPC improvement over Carrizo (AMD FX is Excavator, an older Bulldozer subarchitecture), roughly 40% increases.

CMT splits the resources amongst 2 full fledged cores and hurts single core performance greatly in certain workloads (gaming), SMT has additional resources that can be used for 2 threads with a smaller performance hit to thread performance. Zen runs SMT, and AMD's implementation might be closer to IBM's, which would have less of a performance hit than HTT.

 

Another tidbit of info, Intel didn't actually create Hyperthreading, IBM did, and the true name is SMT. Intel's implementation was the first successful implementation to the x86 architecture.

AMD desktop FX are Bulldozer FX-41XX,61XX,81XX, or Piledriver 43XX,63XX,83XX, Excavator and Carrizo are the same thing, there is only one Excavator based desktop cpu on the market and that is the Athlon X4 845.

[Ronald Browen]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Zen will be better, AMD already showcased a 8 core/16 thread Zen chip against a 6850K and they were evenly matched when set at the same speed.

 

Zen is a huge IPC improvement over Carrizo (AMD FX is Excavator, an older Bulldozer subarchitecture), roughly 40% increases.

CMT splits the resources amongst 2 full fledged cores and hurts single core performance greatly in certain workloads (gaming), SMT has additional resources that can be used for 2 threads with a smaller performance hit to thread performance. Zen runs SMT, and AMD's implementation might be closer to IBM's, which would have less of a performance hit than HTT.

 

Another tidbit of info, Intel didn't actually create Hyperthreading, IBM did, and the true name is SMT. Intel's implementation was the first successful implementation to the x86 architecture.

So given they are at a reasonable price that is lower than intel, I should stick with AMD?

[Ronald Browen]

1 minute ago, Ronald Browen said:

So given they are at a reasonable price that is lower than intel, I should stick with AMD?

given that they are within the price range as the chips are now. if they are more than $200 It might be more worth it to go intel. only time will tell the Prices and benchmark comparisons and the youtube community posting videos of there actual performance in-game.

[meenmeen1103]

1 minute ago, Ronald Browen said:

given that they are within the price range as the chips are now. if they are more than $200 It might be more worth it to go intel. only time will tell the Prices and benchmark comparisons and the youtube community posting videos of there actual performance in-game.

From a fiscally responsible point of view, measure out performance/price ratio between not just brands, but the actual hardware itself. From a wishful thinking perspective, you could help fund AMD's innovation by buying their product when you can sacrifice the price difference (if any) to performance compared to Intel's offerings, more so if you dislike Intel's practices or are just biased toward AMD for whatever other reason.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, LeStringMan said:

AMD desktop FX are Bulldozer FX-41XX,61XX,81XX, or Piledriver 43XX,63XX,83XX, Excavator and Carrizo are the same thing, there is only one Excavator based desktop cpu on the market and that is the Athlon X4 845.

Carrizo and Excavator aren't 100% the same, Excavator is just the base of the Carrizo subarchitecture, and AMD's actual documentation of their chips is fucked up when trying to find actual details. I'll accept being wrong about FX being Excavator.

[Ronald Browen]

1 minute ago, meenmeen1103 said:

From a fiscally responsible point of view, measure out performance/price ratio between not just brands, but the actual hardware itself. From a wishful thinking perspective, you could help fund AMD's innovation by buying their product when you can sacrifice the price difference (if any) to performance compared to Intel's offerings, more so if you dislike Intel's practices or are just biased toward AMD for whatever other reason.

I am just looking for performance for the price. I dont care about power consumtion, noise, or heat. I WANT MORE POWER!!!!!!

[LeStringMan]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Carrizo and Excavator aren't 100% the same, Excavator is just the base of the Carrizo subarchitecture, and AMD's actual documentation of their chips is fucked up when trying to find actual details. I'll accept being wrong about FX being Excavator.

Carrizo is the codename of the apus based on Excavator, just like Bulldozer is codenamed Zambezi, Piledriver is Vishera, (Trinity and Richland in the apus), Steamroller is Kaveri.

It's the first sentence in the press release.

http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-discloses-architecture-2015feb23.aspx