AMD Zen architecture processors are true quad-core CPUs
Click here to post a comment for AMD Zen architecture processors are true quad-core CPUs on our message forum
AlmondMan
Sounds great 🙂 Hope to see AMD get back on track with a powerful CPU.
I'd also really like to see the multi-socket setups for consumers again 😀 that'd really be something.
alanm
"True quad cores".. isnt that what they said about Barcelona? 😀
BoMbY
As previous leaks suggest (if they are true), Zen will come with up to 32 Cores in Opteron processors, and possibly up to 16 Cores with a Greenland GPU as Desktop-APU-version version. But I would guess 8 cores, with higher frequencies, would be the best deal in 2016.
Fox2232
If Zen can provide higher per thread performance than my 4.5GHz i5 and has 6 core version, I'll upgrade there.
I would have upgraded already if intel made 6 core i5. I care little for HT and I am not willing to pay for it.
zecableguy
At 4 cores per "unit" and the ability to combine multiple "units", I would say this will come in multiples of 4. Unless they disable cores on some of the units.
Fender178
I am curious to see if AMD makes a CPU that goes beyond 4 cores with the Zen architecture. Plus I am curious to see if the new Zen Cpus can give Intels i5s a run for their money and maybe the i7 with more cores.
Fox2232
That's not a case, there are no units this time. Or if you want to call them units then UNIT is full 1:1 FP:INT core. Clusters like in Bulldozer and its derivations should not be there.
Shared will be L3 cache, I/O, ... (standard stuff).
siriq
Many of us mentioned back in time , Phenom III should be the way for AMD company but took so much time to understand ........ Wasted R&D and time and many other resource to do the right thing again.
Picolete
In the picture number 2 it says 4 cores per unit multiple units can be combined
SHOCKTRUPPEN
amd back in the fight
So seems AMD has been sandbagging a little. Good for them. Competition is good for our wallets. So just wondering 10 years down the road what will be the standard number of cores people will need or be using, kind of like quad core is the basic norm now? Seems AMD is looking ahead and trying to cover that base. If I understand this article correctly, prob not, these Zen chips can be mixed and matched to cover the spectrum of cores needed. Great idea instead of putting out 10 chips that are only separated by .1 of a ghz. And now that they can use either ddr 3/4 is a game winner I think. AMD has always been about giving us the most bang for the buck they can squeeze out, instead of Intel's mantra of squeezing out every buck out of the customer. Was going to make a new rig, but now I'll sit back and watch the fireworks when these are released and see where the dust settles. Have to wait for the motherboard makers to catch up anywho.
INTEL:peeleft:
schmidtbag
I agree - I too probably would've gone for a 6-core i5 if one existed. HT isn't that great and can even hurt performance (particularly in VMs) but it's such a cheap way for intel to look so much better on benchmarks.
Gets me to think though, if intel didn't have HT, they probably wouldn't be doing as good as they are now. They'd still be rolling in infinite cash but I think AMD would be a little more competitive and financially stable. Maybe Zen could've been released by now.
zecableguy
Just going by what the slide in the article said. I know that reading the article before commenting isn't trendy, but I try to do so.
:bathit:
Fox2232
It does and there they share just L3 cache. If they add 2 cores (50%) and then add 50% L3, it will work as well. As long as memory bandwidth is sufficient.
And thing is that unless AMD plans to give us (general PC users/gamers/productivity app. users) 4/8/12/16 cores where they promise considerably higher IPC than bulldozer then it would be mistake to make just 4/8 core CPU/APU, because there will be very big market demand for 6 core version.
Taking into account gaming with DX12 which extracts performance from up to 6 threads, 6-cores are something to look upon as optimum for now, and minimum for future. 8-core Zen can be called as DX12 future proof CPU.
0655
AMD 2015-2016 MOBILITY & DESKTOP ROADMAP leaked.
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/threads/421433-AMD-Zen-14nm-8-Kerne-95W-TDP-DDR4?p=5004649&viewfull=1#post5004649
waltc3
I have really enjoyed my 6-core 95W FX-6300 running @ 4.5GHz stock voltage & cooling. I'm getting ready to do another AMD build in a few days, and I'm leaning toward a 95W 8-core FX cpu (8320E). Although...I'm seriously wondering if I shouldn't just go with another FX6300 95W 6-core, instead. The 8-core is tempting, and the MSI UEFI allows me to selectively shut down modules (two cores at a time)--if I want. I want the 4-module, 8-core cpu, but truthfully games are by far the most demanding applications I run these days--and I don't know of a single game that can use 8 cpu cores.
Talked with a guy recently who had an interesting experience--the hype got the best of him and he recently replaced his 8-core FX-83xx system with an Intel 4-core i5...cost him some money, of course...and he's very nonplussed by the swap and says he can't notice any difference in his gaming. I suspect he's right...;) (Anyway, my brief flirtation with Intel went as quickly as it came.) I'm all-in with bang-for-the-buck.
Embra
AMD 2015-2016 Desktop Raodmap: (2016 all Zen)
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=32407&d=1430310566
ManofGod
These cores would have to be 3 times as fast as my FX 8350 for me to "upgrade" to a quad core only processor. Minimum of 6 cores in 2016 or nothing at all. However, for lower cost and OEM machines, quad cores would be a good idea.
Lane
This is the schema of the quadcore version, expect 8 cores for the big desktop ( revealed in the roadmap poster a bit earlier ) and way more for the server, workstations version.
schmidtbag
I find your overclock very hard to believe. The stock cooler is a small cheap aluminum block and barely good enough to keep safe temps at stock speeds in a well ventilated case. Also unless you have a REALLY reliable PSU and turned off all power-saving features, you can't get to 4.5 stable without bumping up the voltage a little bit. If you set it to "auto" then there's a good chance the motherboard is increasing the voltage for you.
Anyway, I got the FX6300 myself for the same reasons you mentioned - games are the most demanding applications I run and they don't seem to demand more than what this CPU offers.
Intel is great for benchmarks, workstations, and when performance-per-watt matters to you. But in real-world environments, the average person doesn't need anything more powerful than an i3 or an A6. Note: I said average, I understand people around here need more grunt.
vbetts
Moderator
Thank goodness they are moving to a new socket!
