Had the same thought. Given this is a quad core CPU comparison against i5's would be more meaningful I think.

It's a two module CPU, where each module contains two ALUs and a single FPU. It's not exactly quad core, but it's much more than a dual core.

Weird, hasn't this CPU been out for a while now?

In Laptops yes but the laptops was all gimbed to hell being locked at 15w TDP by almost everyone, think Lonovo was the only one that didn't gimb theirs. Over all i think this processor is pretty good, well performance was meh but temps max 45C, with a tiny aluminium and no coper at all heatsink running at 3.5GHz

Is there anything really internally different in these cpu's because on paper they just look like better binned chips with lower voltages.

Is there anything really internally different in these cpu's because on paper they just look like better binned chips with lower voltages.

If there is it's not enough. 1 or 2 years ago some AMD's head of something made a description of how amazing carrizo was going to be. Vaporware once again. I believe the dude even said it would have DDR4. This is what I hate about AMD. Why can't their PR just shut up if they aren't sure it's going to be what they say?

Plex box This would be a good basis for a Plex media streaming / NAS build, coupled with my old GTX 460, maybe even some mmo gaming. Much cheaper than an actual NAS.

I love the "meh nothing exciting" posts, when the cpu is like $80. You can get the CPU, a motherboard and memory, for the cost of a higher end i3. Under DX12 it will probably give you similar framerates too.

Honestly, while it's nice to see a new CPU from AMD, I'm seriously not impressed by the single-core performance. I'd personally (and most likely based on a bias) go with the Pentium G4400 for $10 cheaper CAD. Better power consumption, IGP, and per-core performance. If you're web browsing it's more than sufficient and is a very capable CPU even for gaming. I'm a little sad to see that it even loses to the Phenom II series from many years ago. Even though it's 200MHz slower the improved architecture should at least make it on par. And it even loses to the i5 760 which is now 6 years old.

Considering that it is faster than 7870k apu in a lot of situation with lower clock speed 30w less power usage with smaller l2 cache. I think amd did good with this. It would be good bit faster if they did not neuter it this much tho. There should be Carrizo with ddr4 out later this year with the new fm3 platform called bristol ridge still 28nm tho. Why be so negative we knew there won't be anything AMAZING coming out before Zen anyway, and there is a good limit on what you can do on 28nm lol and AMD has done a lot on that node.

I think Amd is doing great with the (apu) line-up hell at this point in time the only amd I would consider is a apu there traditional cpu's lack pretty-much in every department compared to intel. This carrizo would be almost perfect for a mid-range gaming build. Make a really high-end apu with 1000 stream prossesors 8 cpu cores plus 8 gpu cores and let it gpo fo0r $200 dollars..... Mid-range - 800 stream prossesors 6 cpu cores + 6 gpu cores /12 core $150

Bristol Ridge's performance is a miracle, all things considered. AMD's CPU department gets a lot of (deserved) sh*t, but what they have managed to recover out of Bulldozer is amazing.

Quick question how tall is the heatsink/fan? Is it under 65mm?

Quick question how tall is the heatsink/fan? Is it under 65mm?

I don't know exactly but it's very puny (though, it gets the job done well); it wouldn't surprise me if it was less than 50mm. If you're wondering if it'll fit ok in a low-profile case, I'm pretty confident it will.

I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer? AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.

I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer? AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.

Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+). So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.

Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+). So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.

...This processor isn't a mobile processor. It's FM2+, it's the desktop version without APU of excavator

...This processor isn't a mobile processor. It's FM2+, it's the desktop version without APU of excavator

I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was. Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.

I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was. Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.

Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering

Realistically speaking, yes i understand what you're saying there's many variables, but this processor, the AMD Athlon X4 845, is the only desktop form of excavator to see what clock per clock differences there are between excavator and piledriver and/or bulldozer Piledriver was supposed to be if i remember correctly around 15% better IPC then bulldozer. In reality, it was more like 2-8% on average and some things a bit more, mostly in single-core performance Steamroller vs piledriver was supposed to be 10-20% better IPC, and proved to be correct about that depending on the situation, but mostly sat around 7-10% excavator is supposed to be 15% better then steamroller, but from what i can tell is maybe 5-10% better then steamroller So that puts excavator where, in comparison to piledriver, and in comparison to bulldozer? 14-30% better then bulldozer and 12-21% faster then piledriver? Which would mean Zen would be 59-82% faster then bulldozer and 56-69% faster then piledriver if the 40% claim vs excavator is correct? This is why i am wondering what the difference is between excavator and piledriver/bulldozer, most of us that still have AMD CPUs have these architectures and not steamroller or excavator, and my numbers are likely completely wrong to real-world scenarios. In the end, if there's nothing that compares them that's fine we'll see how zen performs in the end either way, it was just a curiosity to see what zen is "supposed" to be compared to what most AMD CPU users have currently.

(referring to the AM1 excavator parts)

I don't understand this comment. Excavator was not on AM1, Excavator is on FM2+ and FP4 The only architectures that AM1 was used for were Jaguar i believe?

Read past the sentence you quoted from. I addressed laptops because they are pretty much the only platform where all generations of the 15h family existed on, but as stated before, they weren't worth comparing, so I spent the rest of my post discussing desktop parts. You asked for a way to compare Zen to other processors and I'm trying to explain to you why that hasn't been done, accounting for all factors. That includes laptops. Anyway, the Athlon x4 845 isn't the only desktop Excavator part. There are desktop excavator AM1 parts too. I agree that it would be nice to see some real numbers and a solid IPC comparison between each generation and a rough performance estimate of PD to Zen, but unfortunately it doesn't seem many people care enough to make such a comparison. Your math seems sound though. Regardless of Zen's performance, even if it's 10% faster than excavator, it is still a substantial upgrade over PD.