Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
Hyte Y60 chassis review
ASUS ROG Thor 1000W Platinum II (1000W PSU) review
AMD Socket AM4 Coming Up Inevitably usable for Zen
Some new documents have surfaced on the web, the slides contain information about the AMD Socket AM4 and explain the transition towards Zen based processors (which are expected 2nd half next year). AM4 will be the new desktop socket for AMD. Information indicates that in March (say CeBIT timeframe) we'll see motherboards based on the new socket. AM4 will transition from Excavator architecture towards Zen architecture.
A lot is riding on Zen alright. AM4 will be the slot to use for both APUs and many multi-core processors. Bristol Ridge will likely be the first processor to be used, the followup of the Carrizo APU. The Socket AM4 Desktop platform will support DDR4 RAM memory and FP4 would be the soldered socket for mobile platforms (supporting both DDR3 and DDR4). Bristol Ridge will have up to four CPU cores with TDP ranges from 45W to 65W and thus with support for DDR4 memory (2400 MHz). Later in 2016 AMD will launch their Zen architecture multi-core CPUs, which feature the company's next-gen, performance-focused CPU cores.
AMD, Zen's main focus will be on increasing per-core performance rather than core count or multi-threading performance. Zen architecture will be built on a more efficient 14 nanometer process, rather than the 32 nm and 28 nm processes of previous AMD FX CPUs and AMD APUs. The "Summit Ridge" Zen family will also feature a unified AM4 socket with its GPU-equipped "Raven Ridge" APU counterparts, and feature DDR4 support and a 95W TDP. Zen does not support DDR3, only 7th generation AMD APUs (also fitting the AMD AM4 unified socket) support DDR3 and DDR4.
Anyway, have a peek at the slides below.
Sources: Benchlife.info, Planet 3DNow
nz3777
Senior Member
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2014-01-21
Senior Member
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2014-01-21
#5204164 Posted on: 12/11/2015 06:34 AM
No offence but I would love to believe Zen is going to be a winner but...When I see it with my own eyes its like almost to good to be true at this point in time.Or hopefully not another fluke like Bulldozer was-All the hype and in the end Nothing! I am not holding my breathe to be honest.
No offence but I would love to believe Zen is going to be a winner but...When I see it with my own eyes its like almost to good to be true at this point in time.Or hopefully not another fluke like Bulldozer was-All the hype and in the end Nothing! I am not holding my breathe to be honest.
EspHack
Senior Member
Posts: 2731
Joined: 2010-01-03
Senior Member
Posts: 2731
Joined: 2010-01-03
#5204169 Posted on: 12/11/2015 06:52 AM
intel is already catching up with integrated graphics, not sure what else can they do apart from price wars
I'm really hoping this cpu is as good as they it is because if not I doubt amd will be around long in cpu's. Well even if the new fx equivalent bombs I think apus will always have a place so long as the gpu stays strong.
intel is already catching up with integrated graphics, not sure what else can they do apart from price wars
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2014-07-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2014-07-22
#5204450 Posted on: 12/11/2015 08:03 PM
Not true whatsoever.
Intel has a wide range of motherboards, from budget to higher end. Once you set your system up, there's not much need to replace the motherboard. You're not forced to upgrade your processor every generation. AMD might have kept the same socket for a long time, but that's irrelevant when the performance hasn't been there. My 3570K is still going strong after 3 + years of use, and while I'd have to upgrade the motherboard to go for a faster CPU -- it's still considerably faster for my needs than literally anything available from AMD. When Ivy was first released you could buy a Z77 for around £80-100 and expect a stable, 4.4 - 4.6ghz OC from it without a problem. The same has held true for pretty much every generation of board released since. That's not even getting into the 'budget' categories like the H61 upward.
I disagree completely--eh, that's why I mentioned buying a Pentium on a card that fit into a slot--that was an actual product. Since 1999, which is my perspective, Intel has changed sockets (and one "slotted" Pentium before that) far more than AMD.
And you say "the performance hasn't been" there--not true in the slightest (to borrow your phrase)...
It depends on *which* Intel cpus you want to compare and for what purposes. AMD has remained very competitive--if not superior--when we compare FX to i3/i5 Intel cpus. Intel sells many more of those than it does i7's for obvious reasons. Also, you can buy a 3-4GHz FX-8 core cpu today for <$150. To get an i7 that's faster from Intel, count on spending up to 2x that much--except your games will not run anywhere near 2x faster, will they?
The perception gap is caused mainly by hardware websites that concentrate everything on the high end as if the middle to low end doesn't exist, and yet many more people own low-to-middle-end systems than the high end. "High end, " today, though, can mean many things.
The reason I moved off of Intel in 1999 was because the value-for-buck index was much better on the AMD side of the fence. Still is. It's as simple as that... You probably do not remember, but the list of dirty tricks Intel pulled on AMD beginning with the Athlon in 1999 (to suppress AMD cpu sales) is the stuff of legend. Intel coughed up a billion dollars in cash recently to help make up for some of that (I would have held out for 10x that amount, myself, but all in all it's good that AMD has put that behind them and pocketed Intel's money.)
That's what makes Zen so important for the company. AMD already has agreements from Intel (in writing) that guarantee fair competition from here on out. AMD has already leapfrogged Intel once, beginning with Athlon. They did it once, they can do it again, is the way I see it. Intel is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room--AMD is and always has been the distinct underdog. I've always been a sucker for underdogs, especially because I remember what it was like in the cpu department before AMD came along with Athlon in '99. It was what Intel wanted it to be and it was what Intel wanted to charge and that was all it was. Never want to go back to that.
It's an old joke, but if AMD had never been we'd probably still be running huge 35nm Pentiums with enormous heat-sinks, and we'd all be talking about how Intel would be getting ready to "crack the 2GHz barrier" any day now... And we'd be paying $1200 in lots of a thousand for the privilege.
I am not not knocking Intel or anyone who chooses Intel products. I'm just promoting AMD because I believe the company has a bright future. 2016 will be a watershed year for the company, one way or the other...
Not true whatsoever.
Intel has a wide range of motherboards, from budget to higher end. Once you set your system up, there's not much need to replace the motherboard. You're not forced to upgrade your processor every generation. AMD might have kept the same socket for a long time, but that's irrelevant when the performance hasn't been there. My 3570K is still going strong after 3 + years of use, and while I'd have to upgrade the motherboard to go for a faster CPU -- it's still considerably faster for my needs than literally anything available from AMD. When Ivy was first released you could buy a Z77 for around £80-100 and expect a stable, 4.4 - 4.6ghz OC from it without a problem. The same has held true for pretty much every generation of board released since. That's not even getting into the 'budget' categories like the H61 upward.
I disagree completely--eh, that's why I mentioned buying a Pentium on a card that fit into a slot--that was an actual product. Since 1999, which is my perspective, Intel has changed sockets (and one "slotted" Pentium before that) far more than AMD.
And you say "the performance hasn't been" there--not true in the slightest (to borrow your phrase)...
It depends on *which* Intel cpus you want to compare and for what purposes. AMD has remained very competitive--if not superior--when we compare FX to i3/i5 Intel cpus. Intel sells many more of those than it does i7's for obvious reasons. Also, you can buy a 3-4GHz FX-8 core cpu today for <$150. To get an i7 that's faster from Intel, count on spending up to 2x that much--except your games will not run anywhere near 2x faster, will they?
The perception gap is caused mainly by hardware websites that concentrate everything on the high end as if the middle to low end doesn't exist, and yet many more people own low-to-middle-end systems than the high end. "High end, " today, though, can mean many things.
The reason I moved off of Intel in 1999 was because the value-for-buck index was much better on the AMD side of the fence. Still is. It's as simple as that...
You probably do not remember, but the list of dirty tricks Intel pulled on AMD beginning with the Athlon in 1999 (to suppress AMD cpu sales) is the stuff of legend. Intel coughed up a billion dollars in cash recently to help make up for some of that (I would have held out for 10x that amount, myself, but all in all it's good that AMD has put that behind them and pocketed Intel's money.)
That's what makes Zen so important for the company. AMD already has agreements from Intel (in writing) that guarantee fair competition from here on out. AMD has already leapfrogged Intel once, beginning with Athlon. They did it once, they can do it again, is the way I see it. Intel is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room--AMD is and always has been the distinct underdog. I've always been a sucker for underdogs, especially because I remember what it was like in the cpu department before AMD came along with Athlon in '99. It was what Intel wanted it to be and it was what Intel wanted to charge and that was all it was. Never want to go back to that.
It's an old joke, but if AMD had never been we'd probably still be running huge 35nm Pentiums with enormous heat-sinks, and we'd all be talking about how Intel would be getting ready to "crack the 2GHz barrier" any day now...
And we'd be paying $1200 in lots of a thousand for the privilege.
I am not not knocking Intel or anyone who chooses Intel products. I'm just promoting AMD because I believe the company has a bright future. 2016 will be a watershed year for the company, one way or the other...
Darkest
Senior Member
Posts: 10126
Joined: 2003-03-25
Senior Member
Posts: 10126
Joined: 2003-03-25
#5204451 Posted on: 12/11/2015 08:06 PM
Your buying hardware in the 90's has absolutely nothing to do with 2015, going into 2016.
I was speaking in particular about your comment on Intel motherboards being expensive, which is why I bolded that specific part of your post. It really isn't true, it hasn't been for a very long time. The performance hasn't been there, I specifically gave an example of my needs. AMD has nothing on par with the 3570K for my uses, which is 3 + years old at this point. The same stands for the majority of users. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Zen succeed. I'd buy an AMD CPU in a heartbeat if it offered the performance I wanted. I've owned countless AMD CPU's in the past, from Athlon Thunderbirds and Durons (Remember the pencil trick?), up to XP's and A64's. It's about time we saw a revival for AMD.
Your buying hardware in the 90's has absolutely nothing to do with 2015, going into 2016.
I was speaking in particular about your comment on Intel motherboards being expensive, which is why I bolded that specific part of your post. It really isn't true, it hasn't been for a very long time. The performance hasn't been there, I specifically gave an example of my needs. AMD has nothing on par with the 3570K for my uses, which is 3 + years old at this point. The same stands for the majority of users. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Zen succeed. I'd buy an AMD CPU in a heartbeat if it offered the performance I wanted. I've owned countless AMD CPU's in the past, from Athlon Thunderbirds and Durons (Remember the pencil trick?), up to XP's and A64's. It's about time we saw a revival for AMD.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: 2013-02-22
I'm really hoping this cpu is as good as they it is because if not I doubt amd will be around long in cpu's. Well even if the new fx equivalent bombs I think apus will always have a place so long as the gpu stays strong.