AMD Socket AM4 Coming Up Inevitably usable for Zen

#5204577

Dch48

2015-12-12 02:06

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. .

I also had the intel on a board that went into a slot. It was a Pentium III and was the only CPU I have ever switched out on the same motherboard. The machine came with a 350mhz PIII which I upgraded to an 850 about a year or so later. It was the first, and last, Intel based machine I have owned. It got replaced after 6 years of use by an Athlon64 3500+ system. I totally agree with the bang for the buck statement. It's a little disappointing that Zen will need a new socket but as has been said, not really surprising. I will have one, or it's successor, some day but not right away. I really hope it revives AMD in the eyes of the consumer. Even the most dedicated Intel users should hope for that. Competition drives innovation.

#5205589

Alexis444

2015-12-15 02:24

Gents, they are focusing on core performance instead of core count. With that being said we only can expect better core performance. Maybe AMD has changed their focus and are trying to catch up with Intel and compete in a core to core war. Competition=Innovation= better prices. Is a win-win

#5205689

BLEH!

2015-12-15 10:39

AMD suffered when GF 20 nm flopped.

#5206252

Dch48

2015-12-16 11:22

Yeah, AMD somehow dropped the ball when multi core CPU's came along. They were king of the hill in single core days with the Athlon 64. Then for some reason, the Intel dual cores killed the AMD ones and they still have never caught back up even though they are still good "bang for the buck" choices. Hopefully, ZEN will once again level the playing field. Another Bulldozer like hype and subsequent disappointment would be disastrous. They really need to get this one right.

#5206298

vbetts

Moderator

2015-12-16 13:30

Yeah, AMD somehow dropped the ball when multi core CPU's came along. They were king of the hill in single core days with the Athlon 64. Then for some reason, the Intel dual cores killed the AMD ones and they still have never caught back up even though they are still good "bang for the buck" choices. Hopefully, ZEN will once again level the playing field. Another Bulldozer like hype and subsequent disappointment would be disastrous. They really need to get this one right.

The dual core Athlons, Opterons, and fx CPUs killed the pentium d.

#5206337

Fox2232

2015-12-16 14:58

I would love AMD to come back like in the Althlon64 days! It would create competition and stop Intel dominating the market! Be nice to have a worthy upgrade over my Sandybridge. I remember when Core 2 duo came out, they ruined AMD at that point. I'd gone from an athlon64 to a E6600 and it was a fair upgrade! Fingers crossed AMD will surprise us all! I'm due a new CPU etc 🙂

Considering Zen will have 4 and 8 core versions for desktops and IPC improvements, we can at least expect 8 core with same or better per core performance than Sandy. Question remains: "Will we have use for more than 4 cores?" DX12 should utilize 6 threads + 2 threads for game, Vulkan has no problem to use 8. But when will we see those games? Without them, Zen will not show its teeth much, unless AMD improved IPC and other things drastically.

#5206488

Dch48

2015-12-16 21:59

The dual core Athlons, Opterons, and fx CPUs killed the pentium d.

Everything I have ever read says the opposite. The Pentium D always beat the best AMD had at the time, including the fx models. Then the Core 2 duo really took over.

#5206496

Aura89

2015-12-16 22:19

Everything I have ever read says the opposite. The Pentium D always beat the best AMD had at the time, including the fx models. Then the Core 2 duo really took over.

Not sure what Intel-paid-for benchmarks you're looking at.

#5206497

Hootmon

2015-12-16 22:20

Everything I have ever read says the opposite.

Maybe you had to be there. The Dual-core Athlon chips spanked the Pentium D.

#5206500

Darkest

2015-12-16 22:28

Everything I have ever read says the opposite. The Pentium D always beat the best AMD had at the time, including the fx models. Then the Core 2 duo really took over.

That's not how I remember it, I even found a couple of reviews which confirm my memory: http://techreport.com/review/8295/amd-athlon-64-x2-processors/5 and http://www.anandtech.com/show/1676/7 I linked specifically to the gaming tests, but the results are usually in favour of the A64 X2's in other tests.

#5206504

---TK---

2015-12-16 22:43

Pentium d was rubbish compared to amd cpu`s in that timeframe. Had many an amd cpu socket 939 and prior, my money goes for the best cpu at the time of purchase. Been with intel since the core 2 duo/quad days.

#5206507

airbud7

2015-12-16 22:46

Maybe you had to be there. The Dual-core Athlon chips spanked the Pentium D.

This^...and the Pentium D ran hot as hell too. slow and hot.

#5206548

vbetts

Moderator

2015-12-17 00:24

Everything I have ever read says the opposite. The Pentium D always beat the best AMD had at the time, including the fx models. Then the Core 2 duo really took over.

The Pentium D was just 2 netburst cores stapled together, and Netburst itself was already awful. 939 and AM2 Athlon's were something else man, great performance. Intel had the marketing force already, they just needed the performance. Which they got with Conroe. 😀

#5206609

airbud7

2015-12-17 04:28

The Pentium D was just 2 netburst cores stapled together, and Netburst itself was already awful. 939 and AM2 Athlon's were something else man, great performance. Intel had the marketing force already, they just needed the performance. Which they got with Conroe. 😀

Yea^ i remember my E6850 and then wolfdale came out...Grrrr upgrade cost = 200 still got the e8500...:bang: good days 🙂

#5206629

Dch48

2015-12-17 07:09

Maybe you're right about the Pentium d but one of the things I read was this.

In March 2006, Intel launched the last Smithfield processor, the entry-level Pentium D 805, clocked at 2.66 GHz with a 533 MT/s bus. The relatively cheap 805 was found to be highly overclockable; 3.5 GHz was often possible with good air cooling. Running it at over 4 GHz was possible with water cooling, and at this speed the 805 outperformed the top-of-the-line processors (May 2006) from both major CPU manufacturers (the AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 and Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965) in many benchmarks including power consumption.

The D didn't last that long before it was supplanted by the Core 2 Duo which kicked everyone's ass. I do remember reading though that the D's were 2 chips on a board while the AMD X2's were 2 cores in a single chip which was considered better. However, once the Core 2's hit the scene in 2006 (only a year after the first D's), AMD has never caught up in terms of raw performance. If they had an advantage at first, it was fleeting. Maybe you did have to be there . Admittedly, I have never had any dual core CPU. I went from an Athlon64 3500+ in my desktop (fantastic chip at the time) and a Turion64 ML-34 in my first laptop to an A8-3500M quad core APU in my second laptop which was my primary machine for everything including gaming for 3 years before getting this FX 6300 desktop. I always buy what seems to be the best bang for the buck choice and not necessarily the fastest thing available.

#5206638

Aura89

2015-12-17 07:39

Maybe you're right about the Pentium d but one of the things I read was this. The D didn't last that long before it was supplanted by the Core 2 Duo which kicked everyone's ass. I do remember reading though that the D's were 2 chips on a board while the AMD X2's were 2 cores in a single chip which was considered better. However, once the Core 2's hit the scene in 2006 (only a year after the first D's), AMD has never caught up in terms of raw performance. If they had an advantage at first, it was fleeting. Maybe you did have to be there . Admittedly, I have never had any dual core CPU. I went from an Athlon64 3500+ in my desktop (fantastic chip at the time) and a Turion64 ML-34 in my first laptop to an A8-3500M quad core APU in my second laptop which was my primary machine for everything including gaming for 3 years before getting this FX 6300 desktop. I always buy what seems to be the best bang for the buck choice and not necessarily the fastest thing available.

That's talking about overclocking and not talking about what that CPU overclocked vs AMDs best overclock would be.

#5206641

Fox2232

2015-12-17 07:48

Maybe you're right about the Pentium d but one of the things I read was this. The D didn't last that long before it was supplanted by the Core 2 Duo which kicked everyone's ass. I do remember reading though that the D's were 2 chips on a board while the AMD X2's were 2 cores in a single chip which was considered better. However, once the Core 2's hit the scene in 2006 (only a year after the first D's), AMD has never caught up in terms of raw performance. If they had an advantage at first, it was fleeting. Maybe you did have to be there . Admittedly, I have never had any dual core CPU. I went from an Athlon64 3500+ in my desktop (fantastic chip at the time) and a Turion64 ML-34 in my first laptop to an A8-3500M quad core APU in my second laptop which was my primary machine for everything including gaming for 3 years before getting this FX 6300 desktop. I always buy what seems to be the best bang for the buck choice and not necessarily the fastest thing available.

That quote is so sweet, so 2006, water cooling, OC from 2.67GHz to something over 4GHz and power consumption not blown out of proportion. (Basically being better than newer generation in every aspect, just water cooling needed?) I can see how popular that was... Getting last bark on old technology and investing into that day LCS instead of saving $300~400 on LCS and getting new platform.