AMD Zen processor benchmarks leaked

Here's hoping AMD can deliver something competitive, and force Intel into a more competitive price range. It will be good for everyone.

If Zen is quick and well priced, I may just stick with Team Red for my next upgrade.
 
If AMD can deliver a CPU that delivers performance somewhere between the entry level i7s and the mid-high end i5s while keeping the price at the i5-i3 range they can gobble up a nice chunk of Intel's market share.

So many factors here...but I would like to see AMD do something special here.
 
PsychoFish said:
If AMD can deliver a CPU that delivers performance somewhere between the entry level i7s and the mid-high end i5s while keeping the price at the i5-i3 range they can gobble up a nice chunk of Intel's market share.

So many factors here...but I would like to see AMD do something special here.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The market could do with some strong competition.
 
i am an Intel CPU fun but i am even hoping that AMD gets there act together and bring some needed competition to Intel.
 
Weasley said:
i am an Intel CPU fun but i am even hoping that AMD gets there act together and bring some needed competition to Intel.
Click to expand...

Likewise, I really enjoyed the old days where Intel and AMD were neck and neck, each trying to outdo the other. I built so many AMD systems for people in the early 2000s simply because they were cheap and fast.

Where I think AMD started to slip was around the Athlon 64 era where Intel moved on to DDR2 and AMD foolhardily stuck to DDR for much longer than they should have.
 
PsychoFish said:
Likewise, I really enjoyed the old days where Intel and AMD were neck and neck, each trying to outdo the other. I built so many AMD systems for people in the early 2000s simply because they were cheap and fast.

Where I think AMD started to slip was around the Athlon 64 era where Intel moved on to DDR2 and AMD foolhardily stuck to DDR for much longer than they should have.
Click to expand...

I tend to think there is more to it than just RAM. The Thunderbird chips completely buried the Pentium 4 in every respect, so Intel got a massive wake-up call, and invested heavily in building a new architecture from the ground up. The result was the Core 2 series, which was the basis for everything they've done since then. AMD simply failed to come up with an architecture that could match the Core series for performance and efficiency. Why that is, I don't know. Lack of R&D cash compared to Intel may have played a part.
 
Mmmm amazing considering that there are no AM4 motherboards available anywhere, not even in the deepest darkest corners of the net...In fact I've only seen 1 board, which was a test board to show the socket layout.

Also as far as I know if these are actual performance zen chips it'll be the very 1st batch of ES chips, which means they'll most likely be running in a much lower power state and clocks than a retail chip would.
 
The Joker said:
Mmmm amazing considering that there are no AM4 motherboards available anywhere, not even in the deepest darkest corners of the net...In fact I've only seen 1 board, which was a test board to show the socket layout.

Also as far as I know if these are actual performance zen chips it'll be the very 1st batch of ES chips, which means they'll most likely be running in a much lower power state and clocks than a retail chip would.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the article said as much. These are engineering samples with lower clock rates compared to what the retail version is likely to have.
 
Sweepslag said:
Yes, and the article said as much. These are engineering samples with lower clock rates compared to what the retail version is likely to have.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother reading it. Unfortunately I can't be bothered reading something that came from WCCFTech aka Shitpit.
 
Sweepslag said:
I tend to think there is more to it than just RAM. The Thunderbird chips completely buried the Pentium 4 in every respect, so Intel got a massive wake-up call, and invested heavily in building a new architecture from the ground up. The result was the Core 2 series, which was the basis for everything they've done since then. AMD simply failed to come up with an architecture that could match the Core series for performance and efficiency. Why that is, I don't know. Lack of R&D cash compared to Intel may have played a part.
Click to expand...

The actual result was the Pentium D, but it was a disaster, but they recovered well with the Core 2 range after that.

The Core architecture hit AMD where it hurt, but the biggest damage to AMD's long-term health came from Intel's execution strategy. Beginning around the same time, Intel moved to a system of smaller but aggressively timed processor updates that it called "tick-tock."

Every year, Intel would introduce a new processor lineup—the "ticks" would gently tweak a CPU architecture and move it to a smaller, lower-power manufacturing process, while the "tocks" would remain on the established manufacturing process and introduce more drastic architectural changes. This system limits the risk that a new process or architecture will run into significant problems during the manufacturing stage, and new processor iterations can be introduced so quickly that a competitor with a superior architecture won't necessarily be able to stay on top for years, as AMD did with K8.

Neither Core nor any subsequent Intel architecture has left AMD behind all by itself, but Core 2 kicked off a relentless string of well-executed Intel CPUs. While AMD's CPUs continued to improve, they were over time shut out of the high-end market once more and forced to compete again mainly on price, mirroring the company's early struggles.
 
PsychoFish said:
The Core architecture hit AMD where it hurt, but the biggest damage to AMD's long-term health came from Intel's execution strategy. Beginning around the same time, Intel moved to a system of smaller but aggressively timed processor updates that it called "tick-tock."


Neither Core nor any subsequent Intel architecture has left AMD behind all by itself, but Core 2 kicked off a relentless string of well-executed Intel CPUs. While AMD's CPUs continued to improve, they were over time shut out of the high-end market once more and forced to compete again mainly on price, mirroring the company's early struggles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm familiar with tick-tock, which as of Skylake is now a three-step process.

The main thing is, Intel executed, AMD never quite did. Phenom I and Bulldozer were both late to market and failed to meet expectations, which is fatal in this business.
 
This excites me quite a bit, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with this. AMD can either close or widen the gap between them and Intel, I'm hoping it's the former. I've learned my lesson so I'm not expecting them to topple the best of Intel, but at least give us some descent performance at an even better price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top