To be expected for a completely new architecture really.

Good! They need to get off AM3 and their ancient memory controllers!

Lets hope they start updating their sockets at least every couple of years from now on. They stuck with AM3 for far longer than they should have.

Lets hope they start updating their sockets at least every couple of years from now on. They stuck with AM3 for far longer than they should have.

It really depends on how future-proof PCIe architecture with AM4 is. DDR4 has quite long way to go before it will become limiting factor. If we get 2x PCIe 3.0x16 + 1x PCIe 3.0x8 (or 2x 3.0x4), then it will not need to be replaced for quite some time. For most users 1x PCIe 3.0x16 is enough anyway. Why? Because we expect something, that is CPU performance, slot for graphics card and connectors for HDDs/SSDs. In time we may see HBM in package with APU/CPU as video ram/CPU L4 cache, and even that will not need new socket. Once we get its full specification, we can approximate its life expectancy.

So.... No 8 core? 10 core? I really hope that they'll make a high end 10 core zen fx chip. I love core counts! I want an unlocked xeon damnit!

Hopefuly that means a true 8 core processor.

I have givin-up hope on Amd making a comeback on cpu performance Intel is just way to ahead for them to catch-up at this point in time ie they waited too long! ......In my opinion they schould stick with making Mid-range Apus, they do really well my kids machine just amazed the hell out of me, for sure it feels faster then my 6-core Fx.

I've read its going to be released @ March 2016.. Source:Kitguru

One of the hidden costs going Intel is not just that the cpu's are more expensive, but also the motherboards. Intel changes sockets like I change socks...;) (Speaking as someone who actually bought a Pentium on a card that went into a slot--instead of a socket...!) AMD's AM3+ has been amazingly resilient, and companies like MSI are still introducing new motherboards based on it. But I certainly agree it's high-time that AMD **it or get off the pot...;) What I find most interesting about Zen is that AMD projects a 40% IPC improvement over its current FX cpus--an improvement that is 100% architecture related and doesn't depend on a process shrink. I might find that a bit too much to swallow except for the explanation--Zen will be the first AMD cpus to use SMT...! It will easily do for AMD's cpus what it did for Intel's--that's what makes the 40% claim believable. We shall see in only a few more months...

One of the hidden costs going Intel is not just that the cpu's are more expensive, but also the motherboards. Intel changes sockets like I change socks...;) (Speaking as someone who actually bought a Pentium on a card that went into a slot--instead of a socket...!) AMD's AM3+ has been amazingly resilient, and companies like MSI are still introducing new motherboards based on it. But I certainly agree it's high-time that AMD **it or get off the pot...;) What I find most interesting about Zen is that AMD projects a 40% IPC improvement over its current FX cpus--an improvement that is 100% architecture related and doesn't depend on a process shrink. I might find that a bit too much to swallow except for the explanation--Zen will be the first AMD cpus to use SMT...! It will easily do for AMD's cpus what it did for Intel's--that's what makes the 40% claim believable. We shall see in only a few more months...

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 hope Zen is good i would love to go back to the red team even though i love my intel last couple of builds

So, the desktop Zen CPU's will require a whole new motherboard and memory setup. For me, that means no upgrade until my current system just can't handle newer games any more, which might not be for another 4 or 5 years. That has always been my procedure anyway. I don't care about 60fps at max settings. If I can play the game fluidly (which means at a steady 25-30 fps) at low settings, that's good enough. I'm happy to see that AMD is upping their game and hope that it results in a healthy rebound for them. I see no reason why it won't. I just won't be jumping on board for a while.

Unfortunatelly for you nobody cares about what fps you want in today games and what you expect from the old systems. If you dont care about performance stay with your old system.Some of us wants a real performance and a real competition. Its a new architecture CPU ofc need a new platform,no hard to understand.

people say intel is too far ahead, I actually think its the best moment for amd, intel is just idling now, they are focused on mobile and efficiency whatever, sandy bridge is still going strong 4 generations later there's plenty of people who see no need to upgrade and with good reasons, just see how laptops are now challenging desktops in performance, to me that's not laptops getting faster, its just desktops being stuck, while intel refines the tech so it can use less and less power, essentially fitting what was a desktop cpu in 2012 in terms of performance on a laptop today, now AMD can come and use the 14nm process to build up some muscle which is what we want here, and I really hope they succeed, we need intel to come up with another core 2 series in desperation :P

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

I am hoping that Zen will be CPU that turns them around. They need a 4,6, and an 8 core CPU with good single threaded performance and good GHZ per core performance. AMD hasn't had a CPU to answer Intel since the AMD Athlon 64 and I am really hoping that Zen is the one to finally answer Intel's long call. Also It is about time that they went away from the aging AM3 socket. Also I said this before that AMD needs to based their Zen CPUs off of the Athlon 64 just like Intel based all of the core based CPUs off of the Pentium3.