AMD-ceo: Zen-processors available at the end of 2016

AzzKickr

2016-01-20 16:20

I'm well aware you'll get more FPS on most Intels. But if you have a 60Hz monitor and you get 60FPS, it doesn't matter if you can get higher. But yes, power efficiency is the real big difference here. Whatever AMD's new CPU is like, as long as the performance-per-watt is as good or better than Intel's, I'm happy. CPU speed these days is relatively unimportant. As long as a CPU can keep up with your workload, there isn't much of a point in going faster. The way I see it, Intel has refined the Core i series as much as they can and now they're just doing die shrinks, expanding the IGP, and adding more cores to keep the performance and efficiency up. But they're eventually going to hit a wall, and that wall is coming up real fast (the physical limitations of silicon transistors).

THIS^^ It is also the reason I'm still running an overclocked core 2 quad extreme paired to an R9 290 because it still produces the same framerate results as a modern i7 coupled to the same R9 290 (~9000marks fire strike FHD). It makes absolutely no sense, from a pure gamer's point of view, to upgrade. UNLESS I upgrade my monitor to a WHQD+ model with higher vsync. For now, I have aaaall the power I need from my 8 year old CPU ! Unreal Tournament pre-alpha runs in "epic" graphic settings, I played the new DooM alpha in max settings, ... It's all commerce and the lust for bigger badder stronger. I got off that train a long time ago and am glad I did.

#5221102

LimitbreakOr

2016-01-20 16:28

Have you compared the FX8350 to any recent Intel CPUs? Please return here when you do and explain to me why the fx8350 is worth anything. Hell even an i3 almost outperforms it. The similarly priced i5 6400 is just a much much better buy with half the TDP. I am eagerly waiting for the Zen (especially the AIO), but for the last four years or so AMD has been at a standstill while Intel has kept on going and arguing anything else is just waste of time.

I think your bias is getting the better of you sir, I have to pich in here to say that when I upgraded from my fx8350@4.8 ghz to a 5960x@ 4.5ghz, I saw no noticable differences unless I used benchmarks. The extra horsepower is useful when encoding and performing heavy tasks but in all honesty the amd cpu was great. As long as you're not running an sli and that your gpu remains the bottleneck, the difference in performance is completely negligible. Specially now with directx12 tittle that are about to come out.

#5221103

vbetts

Moderator

2016-01-20 16:31

300+ mods skyrim at 1080p, r9 280, on 4ghz fx6100: ~30fps. and that's not including ENB. same thing on 4690k: ~55fps

You can post that all you want, but until there is any real proof of this then really this has almost nothing behind it...

#5221104

LimitbreakOr

2016-01-20 16:34

just about any AMD processor is definitely good enough, as long as you don't have anything fancy like a 144Hz or 4k monitor.

Actually, I need to correct you here, amd cpu are indeed problematic if you expect to get 144fps but for 4k it's actually perfect. Your CPU doesn't care what resolution youre running so running it at a very high one puts more emphasis on your gpu and therefore making cpu more irrelevant.

#5221109

Darkest

2016-01-20 16:40

Any game which is CPU limited, is going to perform hugely in favour of Intel. RTS, MMO's, and a large chunk of Sims would be in this category. Emulation also tends to favour processors with strong IPC, so if you do a lot of gaming with the likes of PCSX2 or Dolphin you're going to have a better time on Intel. Point in case, you're going to notice a difference between Intel and AMD if you have certain uses or play certain games. The extra performance doesn't magically disappear, the gap is still there, albeit less noticeable in light use. PS: The argument about it not mattering if you only need to run at 60fps is an odd one. You can generally assume that if your CPU is pushing better performance than you ideally need, it's also going to last you longer.

#5221116

fontana

2016-01-20 17:02

You can post that all you want, but until there is any real proof of this then really this has almost nothing behind it...

try for yourself then instead of bashing whatever goes against what you say. or dont... whatever floats your boat. like I said in my first comment it depends on the game. I know most of them see almost no difference, including vanilla skyrim. some games on the other way depend heavily on cpu, whether intentional or not. which is the case in a heavily modded whateverbethesdagame, because of all the additional scripts the mods are running.

#5221126

Agonist

2016-01-20 17:39

try for yourself then instead of bashing whatever goes against what you say. or dont... whatever floats your boat. like I said in my first comment it depends on the game. I know most of them see almost no difference, including vanilla skyrim. some games on the other way depend heavily on cpu, whether intentional or not. which is the case in a heavily modded whateverbethesdagame, because of all the additional scripts the mods are running.

Bash on a cool mod and see where that gets you. He is right, posting numbers with no proof is just means nothing. I personally saw no difference between my FX 8120 @ 4.6 vs my i7 3820 @ 4.6 when I had both using a single R9 290 as 95% of the time I was at 60fps in the games I played and above 60fps in BF4 online. When using GTX 670 4gb sli, thats where I saw the IPC difference. Intel is sadly only option for high end multi gpu solutions.

#5221138

schmidtbag

2016-01-20 18:00

Actually, I need to correct you here, amd cpu are indeed problematic if you expect to get 144fps but for 4k it's actually perfect. Your CPU doesn't care what resolution youre running so running it at a very high one puts more emphasis on your gpu and therefore making cpu more irrelevant.

Haha well that depends. If you have a multi-GPU setup so you can get decent frame rates at 4k, you might end up with a CPU bottleneck. But otherwise yes, in most cases the CPU is far from the bottleneck for 4k gaming.

#5221149

vbetts

Moderator

2016-01-20 18:23

try for yourself then instead of bashing whatever goes against what you say. or dont... whatever floats your boat. like I said in my first comment it depends on the game. I know most of them see almost no difference, including vanilla skyrim. some games on the other way depend heavily on cpu, whether intentional or not. which is the case in a heavily modded whateverbethesdagame, because of all the additional scripts the mods are running.

...You pretty much just took the words from my own mouth. You claim there is a 20+fps difference, but you have no proof of it. I'm not saying AMD is ahead of Intel, easily everyone can tell they are behind. But a gap like that? No way.

#5221154

Enticles

2016-01-20 18:36

this is rapidly turning into yet another intel vs AMD slagging match, the facts are pretty simple when you consider them: * Intel is more power efficient than AMD * Intel has significantly better single threaded performance than AMD * AMD is generally much cheaper "per core" (i use quotation marks because of the single module = 2 cores argument) than intel I own an FX8350, and am very happy with it. it cost me $200 with a motherboard and i use it to run a home windows server lab for my IT certification studies - it chews up 8+ servers with ease (in actual fact the SSD's IOPs choke before the CPU does). however, if gaming was my primary use for this system i would have (like other users) gone with an i5 4690k or 6500k as they do perform a lot better. the point I'm trying to make is just because you think the CPU is a joke, doesn't mean that it isn't meeting the expectations of the people who are buying them.

#5221158

Darkest

2016-01-20 18:52

this is rapidly turning into yet another intel vs AMD slagging match, the facts are pretty simple when you consider them: * Intel is more power efficient than AMD * Intel has significantly better single threaded performance than AMD * AMD is generally much cheaper "per core" (i use quotation marks because of the single module = 2 cores argument) than intel I own an FX8350, and am very happy with it. it cost me $200 with a motherboard and i use it to run a home windows server lab for my IT certification studies - it chews up 8+ servers with ease (in actual fact the SSD's IOPs choke before the CPU does). however, if gaming was my primary use for this system i would have (like other users) gone with an i5 4690k or 6500k as they do perform a lot better. the point I'm trying to make is just because you think the CPU is a joke, doesn't mean that it isn't meeting the expectations of the people who are buying them.

I'd say that the FX6x00 chips are great budget gaming CPUs, although I'd lean toward an I3 or low end I5 build as a budget option at the moment. Performance wise we've seen AMDs current line up hit a brick wall, in terms of Intel at least there's a hefty performance jump to be found in the form of a (unlocked) I5 or I7 down the line. I'm looking forward to Zen, and I genuinely hope it works out for AMD.

#5221159

schmidtbag

2016-01-20 18:55

Performance wise we've seen AMDs current line up hit a brick wall

That's because AMD hasn't released a new architecture for AM3+ in roughly 3 years. There are significant performance improvements when you look at the APUs (both CPU and GPU cores).

#5221161

Darkest

2016-01-20 19:00

That's because AMD hasn't released a new architecture for AM3+ in roughly 3 years. There are significant performance improvements when you look at the APUs (both CPU and GPU cores).

I'm well aware, my point was more toward their traditional line up. Hopefully Zen will address that, lets hope we really do see it this year.

#5221162

fontana

2016-01-20 19:00

...You pretty much just took the words from my own mouth. You claim there is a 20+fps difference, but you have no proof of it. I'm not saying AMD is ahead of Intel, easily everyone can tell they are behind. But a gap like that? No way.

again, what I said, is that there are some specific cases that amd cpus bottleneck the system. e.g. with heavily modded games like skyrim, fallout3, newvegas, which use an old engine that dont care about multithread. And by heavily modded I'm not saying lots of 2k or 4k textures. With only graphics mods, as long as the gpu dont run out of vram you're good. What cripples modded skyrim are mods that run a lot of scripts, like much of the mods that change gameplay, add npcs, factions, quests, etc. them mods completely bog the scripting in the game, and unfortunately in that case, the FX cpus lose to even a sandybridge i3. And that info is somewhat easily found in modding communities. I dont have my old FX to run the numbers, but anyone who have them both feel free to do some testing.

#5221163

fry178

2016-01-20 19:04

@vbetts and schmidtbag im an amd fan since they started to kick intels ass on cpu performance in early 2000's, but i stopped caring about "pure" cpu performance after we got to 4 cores. and: i sold my 8350 rig to "see" what intel can do (and i got a good deal), and have to say, if you're not on a extremely low budget, intel does make more sense. my ssd's went from 300-400 to 450-500Mb/s, usb3 stick from 50-80 to 100-150MB/s (write) and 100-150 read to 150-200MB/s, not even talking about the ram read/write is around 25-30GB/s with 2133, when i barely got the amd to run 1600. since i switched to intel i dont have any BSOD's (like i had with the amd; same os/ssd), and windows is much more responsive compared to running on amd. so having roughly ~30% better thru output on ram/sata/usb, i will always recommend a intel based system over amd.

#5221165

schmidtbag

2016-01-20 19:17

my ssd's went from 300-400 to 450-500Mb/s, usb3 stick from 50-80 to 100-150MB/s (write) and 100-150 read to 150-200MB/s, not even talking about the ram read/write is around 25-30GB/s with 2133, when i barely got the amd to run 1600.

Unless you see your CPU being bottlenecked, that performance increase you see really only has to do with the SATA controller. Back when the AMD first supported SATA III, their single-drive performance was worse than the competing Intel chipset (I forget which exactly), but AMD's RAID performance was better. The CPU really didn't have anything to do with this.

since i switched to intel i dont have any BSOD's (like i had with the amd; same os/ssd), and windows is much more responsive compared to running on amd. so having roughly ~30% better thru output on ram/sata/usb, i will always recommend a intel based system over amd.

BSODs are a case of either faulty hardware or a faulty configuration. You mention that as though that's a common thing for AMD users, but it's a common thing for anyone who doesn't have a properly functioning system; again - not relevant to the CPU. USB too, again, is dependent on the controller, not the CPU. I'm not sure if AMD even makes USB 3.0 controllers; most I've seen are 3rd party. As for RAM, Intel has a lot of triple-channel memory controllers, which can significantly improve performance. In fact in tests I've seen, AMD's memory controller outperforms Intel's, channel per channel. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here. I'm not saying that you wouldn't notice a performance difference switching to Intel, but you're pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

#5221170

Wasa

2016-01-20 19:41

@vbetts and schmidtbag im an amd fan since they started to kick intels ass on cpu performance in early 2000's, but i stopped caring about "pure" cpu performance after we got to 4 cores. and: i sold my 8350 rig to "see" what intel can do (and i got a good deal), and have to say, if you're not on a extremely low budget, intel does make more sense. my ssd's went from 300-400 to 450-500Mb/s, usb3 stick from 50-80 to 100-150MB/s (write) and 100-150 read to 150-200MB/s, not even talking about the ram read/write is around 25-30GB/s with 2133, when i barely got the amd to run 1600. since i switched to intel i dont have any BSOD's (like i had with the amd; same os/ssd), and windows is much more responsive compared to running on amd. so having roughly ~30% better thru output on ram/sata/usb, i will always recommend a intel based system over amd.

You made my day sir! I had to actually register to tell you that.

#5221172

WaroDaBeast

2016-01-20 19:51

Quite frankly, fellow gurus... It was a pleasure reading the debate. Interesting points of views were expressed as well as good rebuttals. This is why I visit guru3d. 🙂 I'm also glad so many gurus are defending AMD instead of bashing it to no end, as I've seen too many times. Keep it up, AMD! Crossing my fingers for Zen! 😀

#5221176

vbetts

Moderator

2016-01-20 19:53

@vbetts and schmidtbag im an amd fan since they started to kick intels ass on cpu performance in early 2000's, but i stopped caring about "pure" cpu performance after we got to 4 cores. and: i sold my 8350 rig to "see" what intel can do (and i got a good deal), and have to say, if you're not on a extremely low budget, intel does make more sense. my ssd's went from 300-400 to 450-500Mb/s, usb3 stick from 50-80 to 100-150MB/s (write) and 100-150 read to 150-200MB/s, not even talking about the ram read/write is around 25-30GB/s with 2133, when i barely got the amd to run 1600. since i switched to intel i dont have any BSOD's (like i had with the amd; same os/ssd), and windows is much more responsive compared to running on amd. so having roughly ~30% better thru output on ram/sata/usb, i will always recommend a intel based system over amd.

This is AMD's problem. They have nothing new in their socket designs, CPU performance is up there. However, they are on such old memory and storage controllers that they are bottlenecking themselves. Their FM2 platform is about the only one on an updated socket, and actually have better and newer controllers. Intel on the other hand, has changed sockets so many times, but it makes it easy for them to make new controllers. Zen is on a whole new socket, so we should see these numbers rise up.

#5221197

nexxusting

2016-01-20 20:24

A user with an Intel says that amd cpu are joke. Have you use an fx8350 for example? I bet you never touch it. So you cant even speak about it. An fx cpu play does what your Intel does. If i replace your intel with an amd and i wont tell you that you will never see the diferences between them.

Lol... I've had an 8320 and a 9590 and got rid of them both. Almost no difference over my 1055t @4.2ghz. In some cases... they lost. FX cpu's are for not enthusiasts. Period. I can immediately tell when I'm using an FX CPU over an Intel. I wouldn't even consider it. Not for one second. Some people are satisfied yeah..... I don't build a Gaming System to be satisfied. It has to be perfect. It has to impress me. AMD CPU's have not done that since AM2. IMO.